Featured Post

Towards a Pro-America, Pro-West Foreign Policy

For years, I have written in this humble blog that Obama and his team have created an unprecedented foreign policy disaster. The disaster be...

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Internet "Radicalization" & Other Dangerous Progressive Fantasies

Muslim-executed bombings in New York and New Jersey. Muslim-executed stabbing sprees in New York and Minnesota.

Another round of Muslim terror, and yet another round of our "leaders" trying to define it away: "an intentional act but not necessarily terrorism," "no evidence of a wider conspiracy," and my favorite, "lone wolf." Right. I also love our Beloved Dear Leader giving one of his copyrighted "press conferences" in which he puts on the "I am so bored" attitude and lectures us on not jumping to conclusions about any of this. He never utters the words "Islam" or "terror."

Hillary, roused herself, maybe she got some vitamin injections, and gave a little "presser" in which she babbled about getting the cooperation of "Silicon Valley" to help fight "online radicalization." Yeah, sure, that's the ticket. Get ourselves an anti-jihadi app, or a new techno gizmo that will stop "hate speech" on the internet. OK. Sure thing.

The internet.

Yes, the internet is being blamed for "radicalization."

Sorry, folks, but the source of Muslim radicalization pre-dates the internet by almost fourteen centuries.

Muslim radicalization comes from a website book called the Koran. That's where you find the source material.

Sure, the jihadis use the internet to push their crap, and justify their attacks, but the radicalization does not come from emails, text messages, chat rooms, or Twitter. It comes from the Koran primarily via a local mosque running with the playbook laid out in, you guessed it, the Koran. These mosques, which the foolish West has allowed to pop up in every major and minor city, serve as centers for this "radicalization." Remember the Blind Sheik and his crimes in New York in the 1990s? He wasn't a product of the internet, nor were his followers who tried to blow up the World Trade Center well before 9/11/2001. Hell, how about the Mahdi in 19th century Sudan? Never mind that, how about the Moorish invasion of Iberia? How about . . . well, you get it. Hillary doesn't, but most of the rest of us do.

Nope, can't blame Muslim radicalization on Al Gore's invention.

The yammering about the internet is just another progressive ploy to destroy yet another portion of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. The same people who will tell us what is and is not terror, will tell us what is and is not permitted opinion on the internet. Just as the progressive darlings come up with all sorts of ploys to do away with our second amendment rights, now they want to use "radicalization" as an excuse to clamp down on the internet. Just as they want Star Chamber-drafted "lists" to determine if we can own guns, without any due process, of course, they want an alliance between big tech and big government to control expression on the wild and free internet.

The progs are having another one of their periodic head-exploding episodes because Donald Trump has said we need to start profiling as done, effectively, in Israel. To try to sabotage Trump, they inserted the word "racial" in front of "profiling," something Trump did not do, and went berserk--including Fox News which, except for "Hannity," is becoming increasingly anti-Trump. Next, of course, we see a deliberate effort to erase the history of successful uses of profiling in law enforcement and intelligence. When the FBI went after the Italian mafia, for example, they profiled a lot of Italians. When going after Jewish, Jamaican, Albanian, Russian, Mexican, Chinese, Irish, etc, criminals, well, you look at a lot of people from those ethnic groups. Not rocket science.

Instead of fiddling with internet apps, let's get the FBI and local police to infiltrate and monitor mosques. We used to it. We need to do it, again.

One last comment, and I will go off to play with my new Kimber--yes, bought another one. Please note that the stabbing spree in Minnesota was stopped by a citizen with a concealed carry permit. He is only a part-time cop and spends most of his time as a firearms instructor. That jihadi picked the wrong mall. The media is trying to suppress the story and increasingly I see media accounts which refer to the jihadi as shot by police.

Yep. Must maintain that narrative: In response to Muslim stabbings and bombings, we must import more Muslim migrants and take guns away from American citizens.

Kimber time . . .

22 comments:

  1. And Hellary is now talking about an "intelligence surge" ... shades of GWB ... surely focus group tested. Have you noticed that her nibs mostly takes questions from female reporters at her mini-pressers? "This ear bud's for you" ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hillary's suggestion of less freedom for the internet reminds me of the whole question of the surveillance state. It will be important for Trump--whether now or after he is elected--to be on the right side of this fraught issue. According to my millennial son, it matters a great deal to his age group. As it should to the rest of us. I'm currently reading Sheryl Attkisson's excellent book "Stonewalled." She says that Snowden is neither black nor white, but that the government strategy of focusing on Snowden himself, rather than on his revelations, has succeeded all too well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, the correct spelling is Sharyl.

      Delete
  3. Right in the BullsEye Boss!

    "Let's Roll"

    ReplyDelete
  4. And there's this:

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/09/19/cair-warns-muslims-now-risk-retaliation-mall-stabbing-attack-linked-somali-muslim/

    It's a knee jerk reaction. There has yet to be any targeting of muslims, but it is in our future if they don't help us stop this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's not radicalization. It's activation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point. I intend to steal that.

      Delete
  6. I get very angry about the Islamophobe cries when we see, as in Minnesota, NY and NJ, where the terror suspects are identified as foreign born Islamists. These are not multi-generational Americans but supposedly vetted refugees/immigrants. I didn't hear one TV pundit talking about the Minnesota stabbing attack of the 10 people mention that the people in the mall could have been armed. Minnesota is a shall state concerning CCW, yet only a part-time police officer/firearms instructor seemed to be armed in the mall, thank God.

    The police say, if you see something, say something, but if you do and your name gets out, who will protect you. In at least 8 states, NY and NJ included, it is extremely difficult to obtain a CCW. Our first line of defense should be the people, but placing your family at risk by doing so, is a difficult decision. Having had 3 death threats over just political speech, I know the you can't expect any protection from law enforcement nor will it enable you to obtain a concealed carry permit in my "may" state controlled by Democrats nor will my state recognize any other state's CCW. Federal law can cause you to lose your 2nd Amendment rights if convicted of a crime that COULD have gotten you > 1 year sentence; Illegally carrying concealed can do that to you. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922#g

    While I am not proposing internment for Muslims as FDR did with the Japanese Americans by Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, but under our constitutional guarantees we now cannot legally arrest and imprison Islamists for their speech or writings. To go after them when they are protected, as are all other citizens by our Constitution, would place all of our citizen's rights at risk. Maybe TEA Party members would be next. While our Constitution is not a suicide pact, it has a remedy to protect itself and us; a declaration of war. That would make the rounding up of seditious enemies in the US legal and proper.

    Most Congressional members are afraid to give that type of power to any President, but by an amendment to the 2013 National Defense Appropriation Act, confirmed by my Representative Andy Harris, supposedly requested as stated by a Democratic Senator as per a request by Obama, the military would have the power to arrest, with no charges, suspected domestic terrorists and hold them indefinitely as in the movie "The Siege". A violation of the 5th Amendment. I did not find it referenced in the latest NDAA bill, however we already have the secret no-fly list that is illegal under the 5th Amendment and other secret terrorist watch lists so the suspected domestic terrorist lists exist now; or they could be issued, unfortunately, under an Executive Order with military arrest orders. And how would that is stopped? No more than the illegal and unconstitutional internment of US citizens of Japanese heritage was stopped.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Constitution is implemented and evaluated by people. If scotus says interment of tall people is ok, then it's 'Constitutional' by every pragmatic standard.
      Such an action may or may not be in keeping the the spirit behind the Constitution, but for all practical purposes, it's the same.
      That's how Hillary's court stacking will drop the 2nd amendment. The 2nd will never be repealed, but much like the court has been on a streak of invention new fundamental rights, it will also feel free to strip those rights it doesn't like. I suspect we're one appointee away from losing all concealed carry and one more from losing our 2nd amendment rights altogether.

      It's not about the Constitution, it's about the court. The 'covering logic' can be implemented in any ways: "Oh, we're making the militia clause mandatory and we're outlawing all militias, because.. well, it's not unconstitutional." (there are a zillion other changes they could choose from)

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  7. "supposedly vetted refugees/immigrants": the idea that you can effectively vet people coming from most Moslem countries is purest poppycock.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And even if you could, their children will become terrorist age one day.

      Delete
  8. VDH holds a 'White Glove Inspection' over at the Never Trump stump, and proceeds to sweep up the sawdust, and some broken Conservative dreams turned nightmares. . .

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440198/

    OW

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's information in posts like this that make me worry when I find out that Trump is not leading Shrillary Shrooooo by something like 82-15. That Shrillary still has a very good shot at being POTUS at this point speaks very poorly of the American people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kepha, remember 2012 and 2008? There is precedence.

      Delete
    2. One would like to think that the American people sometimes awaken from their self-imposed immaturity and stupor :(

      Delete
    3. ..."speaks very poorly of the American people."

      Yes! Brer K
      Embarrassed, at their level of irresponsibility, if not abject disgust, at their fear of offending the bastards who are killing us, and have marked our children, and their children too, for more of the same!

      We've allowed these POLs, and their anti-American cronies, to suck the life from the USA, leaving her people dazed, confused, and on the brink of disaster! The tradeoff, our Birthright of Independence! And perhaps our American Dreams too? "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country."

      On Watch~~~
      "Let's Roll"

      Delete
  10. "That jihadi picked the wrong mall."

    Actually he picked the right mall. Theoretically it was a gun free zone. The sheepdog either didn't see the sign or ignored it. Very murky whether his part-time cop status exempts him.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can someone please explain the reason our dear leaders refuse to identify our enemy? They twist themselves into pretzels to avoid the truth. Now, is it because they are: stupid, insane, clueless, or my favorite COWARDS?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hillary doesn't tell the truth because, well, she never does; and she gets paid millions by the Saudis and others to avoid the truth, even if she weren't a compulsive and inveterate liar.

      Obama doesn't tell the truth either; he's not on our side, he stands with those who would see us dead. He thinks the most beautiful sound in the world is the barbarian call to prayer, and he does his considerable best to ensure that horrid sound will be heard all over our once-free country.

      Delete
  12. http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2016/06/profiling-prejudice-and-discrimination.html

    ***

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete