001On what is essentially the day after the Orlando attack–not a tragedy, not workplace violence, but a terrorist attack–the Media purveyors of the Progressive Narrative are busy trying to distract, dissemble, misdirect and spin. Note the cover from The New York Daily News. This part of the narrative is no surprise. Because the NRA defends, with the help of more than five million Americans–and increasing daily–a fundamental, unalienable right, including the right to keep and bear common semi automatic firearms, they, and every NRA member, are responsible for Islamist terror.  If only we could magically erase every AR-15 from the Earth, Islamist terrorists would be helpless, wouldn’t they?

001a

Journalist David Erlich demands that politicians that support the Constitution be voted out of office. Is the cause Islamist terror specifically targeting gays? Of course not. The cause of Orlando was devotion to liberty.

002

Yet another journalist–and she is far from the only one–knows what caused the Orlando attack: men. Of course, if being male is the cause, this approach logically requires that she explain how 99.9999999% of American men are not involved in Islamist terrorist atrocities.  And aren’t around 50% of Muslims men?  Does Ms. Filipovic wish to ban only non-Muslim men?  That wouldn’t work out so well for non-Muslim women, would it?

003

The Planned Parenthood Black Community, which I must assume is a group of Progressive black people affiliated with Planned Parenthood, absolves Islam entirely, blaming things on men and “imperialist homophobia.” Odd that. I don’t recall America taking over other nations with the goal of ending homosexuality–ever.

NewsweekLogo-1 [Converted]

And to suggest that “the first gay president” as many have branded Mr. Obama, has been doing that, seems a bit, well, delusional. But they don’t give up:

004

Ah! So masculinity “enables rapists & rape culture, violent heterosexism”–whatever that is–“& attacks on reproductive freedom.”  Uh, what?

William Saletan, writing at Slate, provides the obligatory “we can’t oppose Islam or do anything to fight it because that just plays into Islam’s hands” idiocy, though he adds a twist by blaming Donald Trump. We’ll see a great deal more of this through November.

Trump is a fool. Analysts who see this atrocity as an act of radical Islamic terrorism—and who understand radicalism, Islam, and terrorism far better than Trump does—suspect it was inspired by a message from ISIS, issued three weeks ago. This elaborate statement, delivered by ISIS spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, urged ISIS sympathizers to attack civilians in Europe and the United States during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. It also clarified the group’s propaganda and recruitment strategy. Trump’s platform of banning Muslims, blocking migrants, and ruthlessly bombing ISIS-held territory fits this strategy perfectly. He’s an ISIS stooge.

The statement from ISIS, released on May 21, exhorts Muslims to ‘terrorize’ non-Muslims everywhere and to make Ramadan ‘a month of suffering.’ But this plea comes from a position of weakness. The statement says ‘the whole world has allied and rushed against us,’ launching ‘20,000 airstrikes’ and killing several top ISIS leaders. It pledges, defiantly and expectantly, that ISIS won’t quit no matter how much territory it loses.

Well of course! If ISIS says it won’t quit until it conquers and kills us all, we must immediately cease all resistance or ISIS will only get stronger! And Trump is a fool?

And speaking of foolishness, Sally Kohn provides several interesting idea about causation:

006

One at a time: There is a fundamental difference between being disapproving of the gay lifestyle and acts, and murdering gays. A fundamental precept of Christianity is to hate the sin but love the sinner. Christians have no difficulty with this concept. Kohn seems unable to do the same.

Conservatives opposing specific laws for reasons of morality and because of defects in the laws are, once again, very different from Islamist who not only hate gays, but are determined to murder them.

Finally, Ms. Kohn, please provide any scripture of Christianity or Judaism that supports homophobia, misogyny, or racism. Indeed, both faiths teach that homosexuality is sin; see the first paragraph on that concept above. They certainly don’t advocate or condone violence against gay people. Islam does. There is no equivalency.

The delusions of Glenn Greenwald are indistinguishable from an Onion parody:

007

So the life experience of “LGBTs” negates the Koranic, Islamist duty to murder LGBTs? How, exactly, does that work? Being gay means Muslims shouldn’t want to murder gays? How is it that they do–want to murder gays–then? Perhaps I’m not sufficiently sophisticated to understand Greenwald.

And in the All Women Must Be Believed department, via CNN: 

A Dutch woman who has been in jail in Qatar since mid-March after she reported being raped, has been found guilty of ‘illicit consensual fornication” and being “drunk in a public place.’

At a court hearing in Doha Monday, the 22-year old, whom CNN has identified only as Laura, was handed a one-year suspended sentence and placed on probation for three years for the sex-related charge, and fined 3,000 Qatari Riyals ($823) for being drunk outside a licensed location.

Hmm. Does this mean that the life experience of women negates disgusting attempts to exploit anti-woman hatred by Muslim officials? Or is it better in the country or the summer?  And how does this fit into the Black Planned Parenthood’s comments about rape culture and toxic masculinity.  By the way, aren’t Muslim countries male-dominated?  How does that support the sisterhood?

Finally, consider this from the American Conservative. It’s an account of an interview of a respected Muslim official in Dallas, circa 2005/2006.

Two years ago, the editor-in-chief of my newspaper, a very fair-minded man, put together a working lunch in which Mohamed Elmougy, for years the leader of CAIR in Dallas, and I could meet to discuss our differences. Mr. Elmougy, who is no longer with CAIR but who had been for some time the leading public voice of Dallas-area Muslims, brought with him two associates. The editor-in-chief and the editorial page editor of the News accompanied me. Mr. Elmougy and I did most of the talking. It was a long meeting, but a cordial one. As we waited for the check, Mr. Elmougy said he didn’t understand why I considered Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the popular satellite TV evangelist and spiritual advisor of the Muslim Brotherhood, to be violent. I responded by pointing out that Qaradawi has advocated executing homosexuals, and that he gave advice on his website about how a Muslim man can beat his wife in an Islamically correct way.

‘That’s violent,’ I told Mr. Elmougy. He slammed his hand on the table and said he agreed with the Shaykh, and that he wouldn’t apologize for it. He went on to tell a story about an adulteress who came to the Prophet asking for release from her sins. The Prophet ordered her stoned to death, said Mr. Elmougy, and declared that he could see her rejoicing in paradise. Mr. Elmougy finished his account by saying that things we Westerners consider to be unacceptable violence are considered by Muslims like him to be pro-family ‘deterrence.’

I thanked him for his candor, for admitting that he favors executing gays, wife-beating, stoning adulteresses, and chopping the hands off of thieves. I could tell, though, that my colleagues from the paper were shocked by what they had heard. American journalists simply aren’t used to hearing Islamic leaders in this country talk like that. And Islamic leaders in this country, I’d wager, are not used to being questioned sharply about their views. It’s also the case that Mr. Elmougy fits no Westerner’s idea of what a radical Muslim looks like. He is smart, well-dressed, professional, and to all appearances, Westernized. You simply don’t expect to be sitting in a fancy steakhouse and to hear a man who looks like the manager of a luxury hotel—which is what he was at the time—advocating medieval tortures. The cognitive dissonance can be overwhelming.

The author’s point is the media are unable to overcome that kind of cognitive dissonance. Medieval mindsets can be housed in sleek, westernized exteriors, in the bodies of people who smile, have manners, and appear to be kind. How can people who outwardly appear to embrace American–even Progressive–values, be so full of hatred, violence, and brutality? How can they think beating and abusing women, gays, and engaging in the kinds of punishments progressives have striven for decades to abolish is not only acceptable, but a holy duty?

credit: foxnews

credit: foxnews

Do Progressives support honor killings, a fundamentally male, Muslim practice? In Dallas, in 2003, an Egyptian cab driver, Yasar, Abdel Said, murdered his two daughters, Amina, 18 and Sarah, 17 because they were behaving too much like western girls. Said fled and is still on the run. Egypt, and virtually any Islamic country, would give him refuge and hide him. Is this the kind of male that should be banned? Is this the kind of appreciation of women progressives laud?

Media people–progressives virtually all–can’t deal with it. They embrace Islam, so Islam cannot possibly be in opposition to progressive values or ideology, which can never be wrong. They are faced with impossible alternatives. They either admit that they–and Islam are wrong, even destructive–or they ignore it. They act as they always do when logic and circumstances would force them to admit progressivism is wrong: they distract, dissemble, misdirect and spin. They lie. They do anything necessary to keep progressivism from being falsified.

To be sure, progressivism embraces gays and all manner of LGBTQWERTY practices and activists, but some things trump–pardon the slight pun–that. Progressivism also supports women, until Barack Obama came along, and as Hillary Clinton discovered, being black trumped being female. Circa June, 2016, Islamist terror directed at gays trumps gays, and Islam must be defended–over their dead bodies.

One last bit of absurdity:

008

Gun-free zones, according to Progressives, are the ultimate safe spaces, places were everyone can “feel” safe.  It doesn’t matter how many times killers choose such “spaces” to commit their atrocities, Progressives must persist in the belief that the next such “safe space” will magically be safe.  And safe from what?  Islamic murderers?  Cognitive dissonance.

The narrative must continue.  Lives don’t matter, unless they’re rhetorical, and serve the Narrative.

Advertisements