Newt’s a bulldog…ugly and annoying but tough and effective.
And he hasn’t picked up his chewtoys and gone home after not getting the veep nod. I think there’s been discussion about a role in the Trump admin.
Good. We need warriors, and tough ugly bulldogs are.
(And I’m rooting -heh- for a full week of skinny dippin’ for the girls…we deserve it, I mean, they deserve it.) 🙂
July 18, 2016 at 11:26 pm
H_B
You say bulldog, I say opportunistic, impulse-driven loose cannon. Even when he was “on Trump’s side” he offered up several own-goals to the opposition.
But yeah, like I said, ugly and annoying. But that tough and effective part has experience in the trenches and getting shit done, like the maligned but laudable CWA. What he couldn’t do is close the deal and overcome potus vetos.
And that’s where the Donald comes in. Trump can profitably and effectively employ this bulldog warrior, because he knows him…and because as I alluded on your cannon quote, in many ways he is him.
And if he effs up too much, who knows how to say YOU’RE FIRED better than Trump? Which is a lot easier to do with a warrior than a veep, which is likely why he ain’t.
July 18, 2016 at 11:24 pm
B Woodman
“Crude”. .. “Shale”. . .. D’OH! Took me a moment.
But yes, we need to “drill, baby, drill” (and that other, too. yum!) (SMACK!!) (that was worth it)
We need to deny the towelheads our money and independence, and send them back to being the Bedouins and sleazy sand lice they originated from. We need to bankrupt the Wahhabi to where they can’t export their madras and radical imams. Offer to buy their oil at $10/barrel. Tops. They don’t like it? They can eat it. I wonder how long the Royal House of Saud would last under those conditions. . . .
Now, for domestic oil, fair price, whatever the market is willing to pay. Make it worth the domestic oil companies time to produce.
July 19, 2016 at 6:58 am
Kafiroon
If the Royal House cannot pay off the Whabbis, as they have been doing for many years, their “peaceful” country and them will be gone in a moment.
July 19, 2016 at 10:51 am
Old Codger
“Offer to buy their oil at $10/barrel. Tops. They don’t like it? They can eat it. ” (or sell it to the Europeans, OC)
It occurs to me that if U.S. firms had the sense to know what to do with a boot full of piss without being told that the instructions were on the sole, that’s exactly what they’d do. WE have our own oil and thus have an alternative to gulf oil. Between our proven reserves and shale fields like the Eagle Ford near us her in south Texas, we actually have plenty. The only reason we pay so damned much for motor fuel is because we allow OPEC (Organization of Petroleum ExTorting Nations) to gouge us. The Europeans have no such options unless we offered to sell them oil at a price point between what we would be willing to pay OPEC and what OPEC charges. (cash on the barrel head – NO CREDIT</b<) That way they would have an incentive to stand up to the Rug Rats and Venezuela.
July 19, 2016 at 6:57 pm
interventor
Most ME oil goes to Europe and China.
July 18, 2016 at 11:26 pm
H_B
Complex commentary distilled down to a couple of points. Well done, Mr. Muir.
July 18, 2016 at 11:51 pm
NotYetInACamp
Great thoughts in that comic interaction.
My tribe has battled the Muslims for over a thousand years.
Islam mixes with no other group.
Newt’s book read instructions to his Congress back when he had won with the “Contract…” contained many books that I have read and had on my bookshelves. he then proceeded to be a politician and ruin everything.
As I have said about other politicians before, even a blind pig finds an occasional truffle. Islam does not coexist with our culture. Islam has institutionalized pedophilia. We have Bill Clinton fly on the Pedo express to Pedo island in the Dominican Republic. the DR being a supplier of underage prostitutes to the wealthy Caribbean hotels and elsewhere since when I was younger than the whores, and I had to ask who these slightly older attractive Latin girls were in the lobby and scattered about the first class hotel.
Islam is Islam. Expect all that they do. They do not usually all kill at once, but numbers encourages them to kill, rape, immigrate and conquer, among other things.
The crude price dump has once again served to destroy the effectiveness and existence of the USA shale crude oil business. Saudi suffers now, but gets larger prices later they believe, and likely will get.
The Koran is not compatible with the Constitution.
The believe in Islam. They repeat the same “prayers” every day that demand they be loyal and kill the infidel.
Love the women. 🙂
July 18, 2016 at 11:56 pm
Pamela
It’s not compatible with anything including life.
July 19, 2016 at 4:46 am
Bill G
I have long had a two-piece scenario in my head … the first part is at a time islam having achieved world domination. And there’s a meeting of the leaders of the main military groups with about thirty minutes of quiet before someone claims to have been the major force. And the internecine fighting breaks out again.
Second scenario is one single bandaged, battered and bloody fighter. He’s the only one left in a site of utter devastation and he’s looking upwards and saying “Allah, I’m all that’s left, but I’ll worship you correctly!”
July 18, 2016 at 11:53 pm
Pamela
Crude. Drill and Pump it Up. I work in Petro-Chem.
Hmm. Need Zed and Sam doing a midnight dip
July 19, 2016 at 6:57 am
Grunt GI
“Hmm. Need Zed and Sam doing a midnight dip”
That might be interesting..the boys crashing the party…kinda like a panty raid…except…well…none of the women are wearing any…
July 19, 2016 at 2:56 pm
B Woodman
uummmm. . .. .drill and pump. . .. what she said. . . . . .
July 19, 2016 at 5:11 pm
Grunt GI
🙂
So many responses…”it’s a gusher!”
“That she blows”
“Stand back, it’s gonna go off!”
OYYYY
July 19, 2016 at 7:51 pm
Pamela
Safety First so everyone knows what to do.
Have proper equipment that is well maintained nearby to be used on the project. Have proper PPE that is properly fitted according to size. Make sure all connectors will fit prior to assembly.
Remember to breathe. 🙂
July 19, 2016 at 1:00 am
AZScram
I don’t care if they (Muslims in the US) understand Sharia law or not. What i do care about is whether or not they understand the US Constitution. Every immigrant (citizen or not) should be required to know, understand and swear to uphold the Constitution. Can’t or won’t? Instant deportation.
Chris, I’m loving this line of strips, and will be saddened when it ends. BUT! You always put up good points and this will come again. Sooner than later, one hopes.
July 19, 2016 at 4:14 am
JLG
Such a litmus test has a collection of certain DWM’s standing in its way. Whether one is prepared to run roughshod over these gentlemen may or may not be related to how one holds them in esteem otherwise.
July 19, 2016 at 6:55 am
eon
This is indeed the nub of the matter. Religious freedom is one of the bedrock principles of the Enlightenment, going back a century and more before the American Revolution. (see “Thirty Years’ War”, to cite just one example.)
However, there is the uncomfortable fact that in Islam, “religious freedom” does not exist. Certainly not the freedom to profess a religion other than Islam itself.
Not to mention that Sharia law, which is an integral part of Islamic belief, sanctions “honor killing”, clitorectomies and other deliberate mutilation of a woman’s (or even young girl’s) genitals, women as virtual slaves, pedophilia, rape, murder, theft, and wanton destruction essentially for its own sake.
Whatever your opinion of the Prophet as a person, the system he created is essentially designed to sanction the behavior of uneducated, tribalist, xenophobic, misogynistic desert brigands.
Such do not make comfortable or particularly safe neighbors. Especially since they seem to be obsessed with “triggers” (such as a woman not wrapped up in a giant sock), and respond to any such stimulus with violence- after which they say it was everybody else’s fault for violating the tenets of the perpetrator’s belief system. It’s less a belief system than a monomania, in that respect; Obey all our rules, or we are allowed to kill you, your family, and anybody else who just happens to be present at the time.
Islam may indeed be incompatible with the Constitution. In fact, it may be incompatible with actual civilization.
The fact that so many “progressives” who fancy themselves as an enlightened elite’ are serial apologists and justifiers for same, and are enamored of its “mysticism” and “simplicity”, should give everyone else pause, as well.
clear ether
eon
July 19, 2016 at 7:23 am
GWB
The difficulty with sharia is that it is NOT merely religious observance. It is government. We don’t let any religion (yet) stand apart from the laws of our nation. We make certain exemptions where there is not enough of a compelling interest.
But sharia (and all of islam) is more about overthrowing current governments than it is living an observant life. It casts out all other governance in favor of its own.
This means that “religious freedom” does not apply. Note, they aren’t being asked if they pray 5 times a day or attend mosque regularly. They’re being asked if they desire to overthrow republican government in the United States. I consider that well within bounds (especially since I get asked that exact sort of thing every time I do a security reinvestigation interview).
July 19, 2016 at 11:08 am
Old Codger
When it comes to religion, Jefferson’s litmus test must prevail. So long as a person’s belief system neither “picks someone’s pocket” nor “breaks someone’s leg” it should be an entirely private matter. If a belief system DOES cause demonstrable, quantifiable physical or fiscal harm then- and only then – it becomes a public, societal matter.
But then I believe no law should exist which does not directly address a problem which meets the same criterion. Absent demonstrable, quantifiable physical or fiscal harm, no action or activity should be proscribed – PERIOD! And even then such laws ought to be few and far between. Unfortunately, every time something is going on of which someone disapproves, out comes the dreaded mantra, “There ought to be a law!”
That government is best which governs least!
July 19, 2016 at 6:16 am
Paladin
I have always heard it said that Newt had 2-3 great ideas a day; but he also had 10-12 that are pure Crap.
I think Newt would be a great Chief of Staff. Trump needs someone to keep him from going off the rails.
July 19, 2016 at 9:43 am
Spin Drift
Islam is not a religion but a political system disguised as one. As such, the adherents of which are bound to propagate their politics. And as such they foster the overthrow of our republican government which means that the only recourse is two behind the ear for every one of the adherents who don’t voluntarily leave. Give them a choice, abide by our political system, leave or die.
Spin
Is it time to play cowboys and mooselimbs yet?
There is a great deal in the Christian Bible that is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution, either. Stuff about kings, slaves, slaughtering entire villages, whipping shopkeepers, rich people being denied Heaven, etc. But U.S. Christians just ignore that bad stuff. Can’t U.S. Muslims do the same?
July 19, 2016 at 10:22 am
B Woodman
Scott,
I don’t think so. Quoranderthals believe that the Quoran is the literal Word of Allah, handed down from On High. Can’t change one word, syllable, or punctuation mark.
Christians (at least most with more than one working synapse) believe that the Bible is The Word of G-d, but it’s been altered and changed through a variety of translations through the millennia. So “we” pick and choose what to obey, and what to ignore. And one of the driving forces in the “what to ignore” category comes from the “Do unto others, etc” rule. So we ignore the stuff about slaves, burning villages, and whipping, etc. At least we ignore them today. I’ll not be held responsible for what happened in the name of “Christian” religion 1000 years ago during the Spanish Inquisition.
July 19, 2016 at 11:25 am
Old Codger
Sorry, Scott, but I disagree. Not everything in the Bible is commands or ordinances which are bound upon the followers of God and Christ. Much of what you mentioned is history, not law/commandments.
You mentioned slavery. The scripture neither condones nor condemns slavery, per se. What it does do is command slave owners to treat their believing slaves as family.
Rich people are not denied heaven, it’s just a fact of life that many rich people are more interested in acquiring and retaining wealth than in living a Godly life. There are some pretty wealthy people in the Gospels and the Book of Acts who are characterized as being very Godly.
The only “shopkeepers” I recall being “whipped” were crooked money changers in the Temple court who were part of a racket the priests had set up to bilk believers and enrich the priests. Seems that tithes would ONLY be accepted in a special temple currency. So anyone wishing to fulfill their religious duty had to exchange their “profane” currency for the “holy” currency – said currency exchange performed by the money changers with a healthy kickback going to select priests. And all this was going on in a place of worship!
Far from being incompatible with the Constitution, the Bible commands believers to obey the law of the land.
July 19, 2016 at 10:18 am
Steve B
Chris,
just a reminder. My home address changed. Please contact me fopr thj correct address before sending my Jan /Damon items. Thanks.
July 19, 2016 at 11:46 am
Old Codger
“You can be a Muslim, or an American, but not both.”
“The Koran is not compatible with [the U.S.] Constitution.”
Truer words have never been spoken/penned.
In light of the Koranic principle of “Taqiyya“, it makes no sense whatsoever to quiz Muslims on their loyalty since their own God not only authorizes but even encourages them to lie – to fellow Muslims as well as “unbelievers” such as ourselves.
From http://www.thereligionofpeace.com (a non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom.) (I apologize for the length but believe the truth must present in completion.)
What Does Islam Teach About
Deception, Lying and Taqiyya Does Islam permit Muslims to lie?
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences.”
There are several forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, the best known being taqiyya. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
_____________________________________________
(From the Koran)
Quran (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Quran (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim should appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel that way..
Quran (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals – see Ibn Kathir (vol 4, p 49)
Quran (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
Quran (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts” The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.
Quran (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.
_____________________________________________
(From Hadith and Sira sources)
Bukhari (52:269) – “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.'” The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad’s men after he “guaranteed” them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
Bukhari (49:857) – “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.
Bukhari (84:64-65) – Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an “enemy.”
Muslim (32:6303) – “…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).”
Bukhari (50:369) – Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.
From Islamic Law:
Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 – 8.2) – “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…
“One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.”
Notes
Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. There are two forms:
Taqiyya – Saying something that isn’t true as it relates to the Muslim identity.
Kitman – Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”
Tawriya – Intentionally creating a false impression.
Muruna – ‘Blending in’ by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.
Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later. Some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.
Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.
At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad’s “emissaries” went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, probably because they were unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).
Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who “accepted Islam” did not feel entirely safe. Consider the fate of the Jadhima. When Muslim “missionaries” approached their tribe, one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already “converted” to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others believed they could trust the Muslim leader’s promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded – Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).
Today’s Muslims often try to justify Muhammad’s murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by falsely claiming that they broke a treaty with their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.
Leaders in the Arab world sometimes say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then say something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.
The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well that John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, claimed well after the fact that their bar trips were evidence of ‘hypocrisy.’
The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is “a bomb on board” but that everyone will “be safe” as long as “their demands are met.” Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to “slay and be slain for the cause of Allah” (as the Quran puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya to facilitate their mission of mass murder.
The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it “has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization.” In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.
The notorious Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is so well known for shamelessly lying about its ties to terror and extremism that books have been written on the subject.
Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.
The Quran says in several places that Allah is the best at deceiving people. An interesting side note is verse 7:99, which says that the only people who feel secure from Allah are those destined for Hell. Taken literally, this could mean that Muslims who arrogantly assume that they will enter heaven are in for a rude surprise (such are the hazards of worshipping an all-powerful deceiver).
The near absence of Quranic verses and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, many Muslims are honest because of this. But when lying is addressed in the Quran, it is nearly always in reference to the “lies against Allah” – referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad’s claim to being a prophet.
Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran’s nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.
As an addendum, it would appear that Allah is Satan, and Mo-Ham-Ed was simply a murdering pedophile psychotic warlord.
July 19, 2016 at 6:37 pm
Old Codger
You’re welcome.
As to your second comment, compare/contrast where Moses, the prophets and even Jesus met and communed with the Creator versus where Mohammed is supposed to have encountered HIS “God”. Unless I’m greatly mistaken, the former was pretty much all on a mountain top whereas the the latter was in a cave. Draw your own conclusions.
37 Comments
Well done. My week is complete…well I won’t say no to more swimming hole, but thank you very, very much.
🙂
Bite your tongue.
Keep going. We need to see Naomi and Skye like this.
All angles.
WE need a panel of the girls picking up their towels or shoes, rear 3/4 right side.
Spin
Get me the O2, stat!
Newt’s a bulldog…ugly and annoying but tough and effective.
And he hasn’t picked up his chewtoys and gone home after not getting the veep nod. I think there’s been discussion about a role in the Trump admin.
Good. We need warriors, and tough ugly bulldogs are.
(And I’m rooting -heh- for a full week of skinny dippin’ for the girls…we deserve it, I mean, they deserve it.) 🙂
You say bulldog, I say opportunistic, impulse-driven loose cannon. Even when he was “on Trump’s side” he offered up several own-goals to the opposition.
“…opportunistic, impulse-driven loose cannon.”
Wait, are you talking about NG or DT? 😉
But yeah, like I said, ugly and annoying. But that tough and effective part has experience in the trenches and getting shit done, like the maligned but laudable CWA. What he couldn’t do is close the deal and overcome potus vetos.
And that’s where the Donald comes in. Trump can profitably and effectively employ this bulldog warrior, because he knows him…and because as I alluded on your cannon quote, in many ways he is him.
And if he effs up too much, who knows how to say YOU’RE FIRED better than Trump? Which is a lot easier to do with a warrior than a veep, which is likely why he ain’t.
“Crude”. .. “Shale”. . .. D’OH! Took me a moment.
But yes, we need to “drill, baby, drill” (and that other, too. yum!) (SMACK!!) (that was worth it)
We need to deny the towelheads our money and independence, and send them back to being the Bedouins and sleazy sand lice they originated from. We need to bankrupt the Wahhabi to where they can’t export their madras and radical imams. Offer to buy their oil at $10/barrel. Tops. They don’t like it? They can eat it. I wonder how long the Royal House of Saud would last under those conditions. . . .
Now, for domestic oil, fair price, whatever the market is willing to pay. Make it worth the domestic oil companies time to produce.
If the Royal House cannot pay off the Whabbis, as they have been doing for many years, their “peaceful” country and them will be gone in a moment.
“Offer to buy their oil at $10/barrel. Tops. They don’t like it? They can eat it. ” (or sell it to the Europeans, OC)
It occurs to me that if U.S. firms had the sense to know what to do with a boot full of piss without being told that the instructions were on the sole, that’s exactly what they’d do. WE have our own oil and thus have an alternative to gulf oil. Between our proven reserves and shale fields like the Eagle Ford near us her in south Texas, we actually have plenty. The only reason we pay so damned much for motor fuel is because we allow OPEC (Organization of Petroleum ExTorting Nations) to gouge us. The Europeans have no such options unless we offered to sell them oil at a price point between what we would be willing to pay OPEC and what OPEC charges. (cash on the barrel head – NO CREDIT</b<) That way they would have an incentive to stand up to the Rug Rats and Venezuela.
Most ME oil goes to Europe and China.
Complex commentary distilled down to a couple of points. Well done, Mr. Muir.
Great thoughts in that comic interaction.
My tribe has battled the Muslims for over a thousand years.
Islam mixes with no other group.
Newt’s book read instructions to his Congress back when he had won with the “Contract…” contained many books that I have read and had on my bookshelves. he then proceeded to be a politician and ruin everything.
As I have said about other politicians before, even a blind pig finds an occasional truffle. Islam does not coexist with our culture. Islam has institutionalized pedophilia. We have Bill Clinton fly on the Pedo express to Pedo island in the Dominican Republic. the DR being a supplier of underage prostitutes to the wealthy Caribbean hotels and elsewhere since when I was younger than the whores, and I had to ask who these slightly older attractive Latin girls were in the lobby and scattered about the first class hotel.
Islam is Islam. Expect all that they do. They do not usually all kill at once, but numbers encourages them to kill, rape, immigrate and conquer, among other things.
The crude price dump has once again served to destroy the effectiveness and existence of the USA shale crude oil business. Saudi suffers now, but gets larger prices later they believe, and likely will get.
The Koran is not compatible with the Constitution.
The believe in Islam. They repeat the same “prayers” every day that demand they be loyal and kill the infidel.
Love the women. 🙂
It’s not compatible with anything including life.
I have long had a two-piece scenario in my head … the first part is at a time islam having achieved world domination. And there’s a meeting of the leaders of the main military groups with about thirty minutes of quiet before someone claims to have been the major force. And the internecine fighting breaks out again.
Second scenario is one single bandaged, battered and bloody fighter. He’s the only one left in a site of utter devastation and he’s looking upwards and saying “Allah, I’m all that’s left, but I’ll worship you correctly!”
Crude. Drill and Pump it Up. I work in Petro-Chem.
Hmm. Need Zed and Sam doing a midnight dip
“Hmm. Need Zed and Sam doing a midnight dip”
That might be interesting..the boys crashing the party…kinda like a panty raid…except…well…none of the women are wearing any…
uummmm. . .. .drill and pump. . .. what she said. . . . . .
🙂
So many responses…”it’s a gusher!”
“That she blows”
“Stand back, it’s gonna go off!”
OYYYY
Safety First so everyone knows what to do.
Have proper equipment that is well maintained nearby to be used on the project. Have proper PPE that is properly fitted according to size. Make sure all connectors will fit prior to assembly.
Remember to breathe. 🙂
I don’t care if they (Muslims in the US) understand Sharia law or not. What i do care about is whether or not they understand the US Constitution. Every immigrant (citizen or not) should be required to know, understand and swear to uphold the Constitution. Can’t or won’t? Instant deportation.
Perfection in one short shot.
Chris, I’m loving this line of strips, and will be saddened when it ends. BUT! You always put up good points and this will come again. Sooner than later, one hopes.
Such a litmus test has a collection of certain DWM’s standing in its way. Whether one is prepared to run roughshod over these gentlemen may or may not be related to how one holds them in esteem otherwise.
This is indeed the nub of the matter. Religious freedom is one of the bedrock principles of the Enlightenment, going back a century and more before the American Revolution. (see “Thirty Years’ War”, to cite just one example.)
However, there is the uncomfortable fact that in Islam, “religious freedom” does not exist. Certainly not the freedom to profess a religion other than Islam itself.
Not to mention that Sharia law, which is an integral part of Islamic belief, sanctions “honor killing”, clitorectomies and other deliberate mutilation of a woman’s (or even young girl’s) genitals, women as virtual slaves, pedophilia, rape, murder, theft, and wanton destruction essentially for its own sake.
Whatever your opinion of the Prophet as a person, the system he created is essentially designed to sanction the behavior of uneducated, tribalist, xenophobic, misogynistic desert brigands.
Such do not make comfortable or particularly safe neighbors. Especially since they seem to be obsessed with “triggers” (such as a woman not wrapped up in a giant sock), and respond to any such stimulus with violence- after which they say it was everybody else’s fault for violating the tenets of the perpetrator’s belief system. It’s less a belief system than a monomania, in that respect; Obey all our rules, or we are allowed to kill you, your family, and anybody else who just happens to be present at the time.
Islam may indeed be incompatible with the Constitution. In fact, it may be incompatible with actual civilization.
The fact that so many “progressives” who fancy themselves as an enlightened elite’ are serial apologists and justifiers for same, and are enamored of its “mysticism” and “simplicity”, should give everyone else pause, as well.
clear ether
eon
The difficulty with sharia is that it is NOT merely religious observance. It is government. We don’t let any religion (yet) stand apart from the laws of our nation. We make certain exemptions where there is not enough of a compelling interest.
But sharia (and all of islam) is more about overthrowing current governments than it is living an observant life. It casts out all other governance in favor of its own.
This means that “religious freedom” does not apply. Note, they aren’t being asked if they pray 5 times a day or attend mosque regularly. They’re being asked if they desire to overthrow republican government in the United States. I consider that well within bounds (especially since I get asked that exact sort of thing every time I do a security reinvestigation interview).
When it comes to religion, Jefferson’s litmus test must prevail. So long as a person’s belief system neither “picks someone’s pocket” nor “breaks someone’s leg” it should be an entirely private matter. If a belief system DOES cause demonstrable, quantifiable physical or fiscal harm then- and only then – it becomes a public, societal matter.
But then I believe no law should exist which does not directly address a problem which meets the same criterion. Absent demonstrable, quantifiable physical or fiscal harm, no action or activity should be proscribed – PERIOD! And even then such laws ought to be few and far between. Unfortunately, every time something is going on of which someone disapproves, out comes the dreaded mantra, “There ought to be a law!”
That government is best which governs least!
I have always heard it said that Newt had 2-3 great ideas a day; but he also had 10-12 that are pure Crap.
I think Newt would be a great Chief of Staff. Trump needs someone to keep him from going off the rails.
Islam is not a religion but a political system disguised as one. As such, the adherents of which are bound to propagate their politics. And as such they foster the overthrow of our republican government which means that the only recourse is two behind the ear for every one of the adherents who don’t voluntarily leave. Give them a choice, abide by our political system, leave or die.
Spin
Is it time to play cowboys and mooselimbs yet?
There is a great deal in the Christian Bible that is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution, either. Stuff about kings, slaves, slaughtering entire villages, whipping shopkeepers, rich people being denied Heaven, etc. But U.S. Christians just ignore that bad stuff. Can’t U.S. Muslims do the same?
Scott,
I don’t think so. Quoranderthals believe that the Quoran is the literal Word of Allah, handed down from On High. Can’t change one word, syllable, or punctuation mark.
Christians (at least most with more than one working synapse) believe that the Bible is The Word of G-d, but it’s been altered and changed through a variety of translations through the millennia. So “we” pick and choose what to obey, and what to ignore. And one of the driving forces in the “what to ignore” category comes from the “Do unto others, etc” rule. So we ignore the stuff about slaves, burning villages, and whipping, etc. At least we ignore them today. I’ll not be held responsible for what happened in the name of “Christian” religion 1000 years ago during the Spanish Inquisition.
Sorry, Scott, but I disagree. Not everything in the Bible is commands or ordinances which are bound upon the followers of God and Christ. Much of what you mentioned is history, not law/commandments.
You mentioned slavery. The scripture neither condones nor condemns slavery, per se. What it does do is command slave owners to treat their believing slaves as family.
Rich people are not denied heaven, it’s just a fact of life that many rich people are more interested in acquiring and retaining wealth than in living a Godly life. There are some pretty wealthy people in the Gospels and the Book of Acts who are characterized as being very Godly.
The only “shopkeepers” I recall being “whipped” were crooked money changers in the Temple court who were part of a racket the priests had set up to bilk believers and enrich the priests. Seems that tithes would ONLY be accepted in a special temple currency. So anyone wishing to fulfill their religious duty had to exchange their “profane” currency for the “holy” currency – said currency exchange performed by the money changers with a healthy kickback going to select priests. And all this was going on in a place of worship!
Far from being incompatible with the Constitution, the Bible commands believers to obey the law of the land.
Chris,
just a reminder. My home address changed. Please contact me fopr thj correct address before sending my Jan /Damon items. Thanks.
“You can be a Muslim, or an American, but not both.”
“The Koran is not compatible with [the U.S.] Constitution.”
Truer words have never been spoken/penned.
In light of the Koranic principle of “Taqiyya“, it makes no sense whatsoever to quiz Muslims on their loyalty since their own God not only authorizes but even encourages them to lie – to fellow Muslims as well as “unbelievers” such as ourselves.
From http://www.thereligionofpeace.com (a non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom.) (I apologize for the length but believe the truth must present in completion.)
What Does Islam Teach About
Deception, Lying and Taqiyya
Does Islam permit Muslims to lie?
Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences.”
There are several forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, the best known being taqiyya. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause of Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.
_____________________________________________
(From the Koran)
Quran (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Quran (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim should appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel that way..
Quran (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals – see Ibn Kathir (vol 4, p 49)
Quran (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
Quran (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts” The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.
Quran (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.
_____________________________________________
(From Hadith and Sira sources)
Bukhari (52:269) – “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.'” The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad’s men after he “guaranteed” them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
Bukhari (49:857) – “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.
Bukhari (84:64-65) – Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an “enemy.”
Muslim (32:6303) – “…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).”
Bukhari (50:369) – Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.
From Islamic Law:
Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 – 8.2) – “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…
“One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.”
Notes
Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. There are two forms:
Taqiyya – Saying something that isn’t true as it relates to the Muslim identity.
Kitman – Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”
Tawriya – Intentionally creating a false impression.
Muruna – ‘Blending in’ by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.
Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later. Some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.
Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.
At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad’s “emissaries” went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, probably because they were unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).
Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who “accepted Islam” did not feel entirely safe. Consider the fate of the Jadhima. When Muslim “missionaries” approached their tribe, one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already “converted” to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others believed they could trust the Muslim leader’s promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded – Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).
Today’s Muslims often try to justify Muhammad’s murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by falsely claiming that they broke a treaty with their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.
Leaders in the Arab world sometimes say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then say something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.
The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well that John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, claimed well after the fact that their bar trips were evidence of ‘hypocrisy.’
The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is “a bomb on board” but that everyone will “be safe” as long as “their demands are met.” Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to “slay and be slain for the cause of Allah” (as the Quran puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya to facilitate their mission of mass murder.
The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it “has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization.” In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.
The notorious Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is so well known for shamelessly lying about its ties to terror and extremism that books have been written on the subject.
Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.
The Quran says in several places that Allah is the best at deceiving people. An interesting side note is verse 7:99, which says that the only people who feel secure from Allah are those destined for Hell. Taken literally, this could mean that Muslims who arrogantly assume that they will enter heaven are in for a rude surprise (such are the hazards of worshipping an all-powerful deceiver).
The near absence of Quranic verses and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, many Muslims are honest because of this. But when lying is addressed in the Quran, it is nearly always in reference to the “lies against Allah” – referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad’s claim to being a prophet.
Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran’s nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.
THAT was a whole bunch of good “know your enemy” intel. Thank you.
As an addendum, it would appear that Allah is Satan, and Mo-Ham-Ed was simply a murdering pedophile psychotic warlord.
You’re welcome.
As to your second comment, compare/contrast where Moses, the prophets and even Jesus met and communed with the Creator versus where Mohammed is supposed to have encountered HIS “God”. Unless I’m greatly mistaken, the former was pretty much all on a mountain top whereas the the latter was in a cave. Draw your own conclusions.