Living In A Madhouse

K T Cat: Living In A Madhouse

Coming Soon to a Street Near You

Jihad Watch: German court: Sharia police may patrol streets

=========
Edit 2017/07/22:

The following links are listed in chronological order --

Jihad Watch: Minneapolis: Muslim cop who shot woman in cold blood had three complaints against him --

We don’t have any indication at this point of why Mohamed Noor killed Justine Damond. There is no evidence now that he is a jihadi or that this was a jihad attack. But with three complaints against him in two years, he seems at very least to be dangerously reckless and/or incompetent. His presence on the force appears to be a manifestation of the general anxiety to avoid charges of “Islamophobia”: Minneapolis officials were so anxious to have a Somali Muslim police officer that they put Mohamed Noor on the force and kept him there when his obvious shortcomings would have had a non-Muslim officer fired or not hired in the first place.

Remember the fact of those three complaints in two years in light of a claim advanced below by the Chief-of-Police of Minneapolis (while also keeping in mind that bogus complaints against police officers are very common).

Also, think about this --

The police officer who shot and killed an unarmed Australian woman in mysterious circumstances after she called 911 to report a disturbance behind her upscale Minneapolis home has been identified.

Mohamed Noor, who joined the department in March 2015, reached over and shot Justine Damond, 40, multiple times from the passenger seat of his squad car while she spoke to his colleague on the drivers side in a back alley.

Both officer’s bodycams were off and the squad car camera not recording when Damond – who was in her pyjamas – was killed ...

Jihad Watch: Washington Post: After Muslim cop shoots unarmed woman, Muslims “brace for backlash”

Jihad Watch: Minneapolis: Muslim cop who shot unarmed woman refuses to be interviewed by investigators

Jihad Watch: Muslim cop tells friends, not investigators, he was “startled” by unarmed woman he killed

Jihad Watch: Neighbor of Muslim cop who killed unarmed woman says killer is “nervous…jumpy…has little respect for women”

Jihad Watch: After Muslim cop kills unarmed woman, Minneapolis mayor reassures Muslims, warns against “Islamophobia”

Jihad Watch: Muslim cop who shot unarmed woman says he was “startled” by loud noise, but no nearby residents heard it

I dare say he *was* "startled" by a loud noise ... his gun ... which, apparently, he already had drawn and pointed.

Jihad Watch: Minneapolis police chief: Muslim cop who killed unarmed woman “very suited to be on the street”

Jihad Watch: Lawyers for Muslim cop who killed unarmed woman call for autopsy to see if victim was on Ambien -- "Like so many Muslims before him, it looks as if Mohamed Noor has opted to defend himself by blaming the victim."

Iconic!

Sean L, commenting at the Gay Patriot blog -- "The picture of the Europeans standing over the victim and the African Muslim walking past had better become as iconic as the girl kneeling over the body of her fellow student at Kent State. No image better incapsulates the antipathy that the Muslim world feels towards the West."

Edit 2017/03/28:
See also


Edit 2017/03/26:
As 'Throbert McGee' said later in the comments, "... There’s no such thing as telepathy, and this photo — indeed, ANY photo — captures only a fraction of a second of information. (The photographer himself has attested that the woman in hijab seemed very shaken, despite seeming calm and aloof in that one particular image.)"

And of course it is true that a photo can be (and frequently is) misleading, sometimes intentionally. We have no idea what the woman captured in the photo was actually thinking -- but it's also utterly irrelevant what she was thinking, because this is not about *her*, it's about "the religion of pieces", of which she signals herself to be a member.

At the same time, does the photographer's impression that she, the individual, was "shaken" have any more to do with the truth of her mental state than my impression that while she may be annoyed at the momentary inconvenience of the result, she isn't morally outraged by the immorality of what her co-religionist(s) did? Especially now that the photo has been seen by millions -- the photographer is going to be under a lot of pressure from leftist virtue-signallers and "social justice warriors" ... and from agents of the British government ... to insist that the photo doesn't show what it appears to show. The answer is "No," because --
1) "There’s no such thing as telepathy";
2) and, once again, this is not about *her*, it's about "the religion of pieces", of which she signals herself to be a member.

Security!

I went down to the county court house this past Monday to pay my property taxes (*). Before I could get into the building, I had to go through one of those security kabuki check-points -- empty my pockets into a plastic tray for one of the (supposedly) armed (overweight) middle-aged employees of the county sherrif to send through a scanner while I walked through another.

It's the same thing at the city building, and it has more public entrances.

Multiply this by all (or most) of the public buildings in the USA.

This is leftist "reasoning": rather than just prohibiting Moslems -- who are the hands-down overwhelming perpetrators of terrorism worldwide -- from entering the USA, we must pretend -- at great expense and waste of resources -- that all Americans are potential terrorists.

It's like after the 2000 elections didn't go in the Democrats' favor. The Democrats (i.e. the "Evil Party", controled by leftist haters of America) pretended that the simple paper punch ballots we had been using for decades were "too confusing" (for Democrat voters) ... and so, at great expense and waste of resources, we now have those damned electronic voting stations all over the country, which constantly malfuncion (seemingly always in favor of the Democrats) ... and of which after the 2016 elections didn't go in the Democrats' favor they claimed were "hacked" by the Russians.


It's like the motto of the leftists is, "There is no "problem" that a little (disingenuous) ingenuity can't make worse!"







(*) I have no income, but the tax man will still confiscate my property if I don't pay up. It's like a Mafia thing.

But what sort of martyr?

Maureen Mullarkey at TheFederalist: Was Jacques Hamel A Martyr To The Faith Or To His Illusions About Islam?

Set aside, if you can, all horror at Hamel’s murder. Look past, please, all warranted sympathy for this good man and his terrible end. There remains a question: Was the priest a martyr for the faith or to his own illusions about Islam?

By all accounts a kindly man, Hamel served in a parish committed to the very illusion of ecumenical agreement with Islam that de Mattei abhors. The Belfast Telegraph reports the nuns gave reading lessons to Muslim kids in the tower blocks. Church authorities soared above such neighborliness. Courting dhimmitude, they donated the land beside Hamel’s church to local Muslims to build the mosque his two young killers attended. During Ramadan, the parish hall “and other facilities” were given over to Muslims. (In terms of Islamic jurisprudence, the mosque and the ground under it belong forever to the eternal ummah. The archdiocese has ceded a portion of Normandy to the caliphate. Allah be praised.)

In his last pastoral letter, Hamel called for communities to live together and “accept each other as they are.” But accepting Islam means recognizing its totalizing nature. Authentic acceptance is unsentimental. It is a prod to staying watchful. To befriend Muslims as individuals does not cancel the necessity to know Islam’s history, its millenarian ambitions, and its enduring theological imperative toward violence.

Christian charity does not entail any obligation to accommodate Islam’s muscular expansion in the West. One way to love the enemy is to defeat him. Yet Hamel’s parish was actively lending itself to Islam’s ascendancy. Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray is a lesson in the price Christianity pays for the fanaticism of profligate mercy.

All Lies Matter, II

David Warren: Confronting evil with joss sticks -- "...
The French president said it [the brutal murder by Moslems of a Catholic priest at the altar of a Catholic church where he had been officiating the Mass] was an attack on all French citizens, which presumably includes the citizen Islamists; our pope called the violence “absurd.” I find these lies in extremely poor taste. It was not an attack on all Frenchmen, but symbolically on a Catholic priest. And it was not absurd, but purposefully directed to that end. Father Jacques Hamel was martyred during the morning Mass. His throat slit, then by some accounts, beheaded; two nuns and two others at prayer also seized and tormented; and another throat slit; while a rant was delivered from the altar, in Arabic.

I am truly disgusted by remarks from Rome that we hope the elderly priest is at peace, and that we condemn “every form of hatred.” This reduces the teaching of Our Lord to the asinine. Reference to Islam was carefully avoided.

One wonders what atrocity the Islamists must commit, to make their point more explicit.

I really don’t care if they hate us. That is their opinion, and none of my concern. I do care that they are trying to kill us, on the basis of verses plausibly cited from the Koran. Would it hurt their feelings if we called them on this?"

A previous pope popularized (and, so far as I know, coined) the phrase "culture of death" to describe the suicidal direction that the post-Christian Western cultures have deliberately taken since turning their backs on the heritage, and religion, of their fathers; the current pope appears to have to have made his peace with the "culture of death" and to have dived headlong into it.

I'm so glad that as a Protestant and a Christian (*), I don't feel any need at all to contort myself defending that fool (nor the French one, for that matter).



(*) Yes, I went there. And, as Warren says of Moslems hating us, "I really don’t care" that (some) Catholics will get their panties into a twist -- hypocritically, in every case -- because I distinguish between Catholicism -- a bureaucracy which claims to own Christianity -- and Christianity itself.

While not claiming any "word from God" nor gift of prophesy, it certainly appears to me that the time is upon us when Catholics will have to choose: do you stand with Christ, or do you stand with the self-anointed "vicar of Christ"?

The other way they get their rocks off

Jihad Watch (linking to the UK's Daily Mail Online): US-backed Syrian “rebels” screaming “Allahu akbar” behead small boy as “spy”

I fully expect that they raped the boy before murdering him to make their snuff film.

Here is a comment that well expresses exactly what I was thinking when I saw the (pre-murder) photo --
"Look at their friendly smiling faces.

Take the little, soon to be brutally murdered, boy out of the picture and any immigration officer would only see nice young syrian refugees who need our help and support.
…
They’re amongst us already.

By the thousands."

THAT is the face of Islam ... smiles while preparing for brutal murder.

Compare and contrast

On the one hand and on the other (also, this).

And on the other, moral equivalency, hand

Rue Britannia!

Jihad Watch: UK: Imam accused of recruiting for jihad group doesn’t have to wear electronic tag — it breaches his human rights

W'allah w'allah bing-bang

The nonsense phrase "Walla walla bing-bang", along with constant references to WallawallaWashington, is something I remember from watching Alvin anf the Chipmumks and Rocky and Bullwinkle in my in my long-ago childhood.

The equally nonsensical phrase "W'allah w'allah bing-bang" is my memory of "Walla walla bing-bang" ... turned into a mockery of Moslems, asses waving in the air (*), chanting their devoted slavery to the demon Allah.

Laura Rosen Cohen: National Post: Converting To Islam Might Save Your Disgusting Infidel Heads But Hey Probably Not, Kufar

As Mrs Cohen points out, the National Post article is not only disgusting on multiple levels, but is also intellectually dishonest. For, the shahadah is not *simply* "a Moslem prayer (that might save your life)"; it is not *simply* "a testimony to the identity of Allah as the one true God, and Muhammad as his prophet". It is, rather, a declaration that one is a Moslem ... if one is not a Moslem, to recite the shahadah converts one to Islam ... from which the real Moslems will not allow one to deconvert, on pain of death.

But then, anyone who would recite the shahadah attempting to convince the neck hackers to turn their attentions to someone else rather deserves to die, don't you think?

I am a Christian, not a Jew (one has to go back a few generations to find the Jews in my ancestry), but I approvingly quote Mrs Cohen, quoting Daniel Pearl before he was murdered by Moslems specifically because they were Moslems and he was a Jew and an American: "'My father's Jewish, my mother's Jewish, I'm Jewish,'"


(*) kind of makes you suspect the reason sodomy is so popular amongst Moslems.

'The tunnel led right to the kindergarten.'‏

Via Laura Rosen Cohen, The Jerusalem Post: IDF uncovers Palestinian terrorist tunnel leading from Gaza to kibbutz in Israel -- "Underground passageway - built with Israeli concrete slabs - took over a year to build, say army sources, was 3rd discovered this year."

As I commented --
Well, you know, it's all the fault of those perfidious Jooo... , er, Zionists, because the Zionist entity won't allow enough concrete into Gaza to build both tunnels and kindergartens.

Exactly

a comment at 'Jihad Watch' even as we resist Islam, we are becoming Islamised --

I was talking to my sister about what happened in Kenya. She is not really interested, and is very absorbed by her natural-health business. But she has learned quite a bit from me, albeit reluctantly, and knows there is a problem (damn right there is.)

She asked how I can cope with the information I receive about jihad killing, etc. I said that I think I have become Islamised to some extent: I hear so much about savagery that in a way I am like them now, used to it, used to the idea of beheadings and stonings, even though I want to fight such things like crazy.

How must it be for Christians stuck in the "Muslim world" to be exposed to the islamisation process of acceptance of brutality? What a life!

So it occurs to me that even as we resist Islam, we are becoming Islamised. What a creepy thought.

Exactly: "So it occurs to me that even as we resist Islam, we are becoming Islamised. What a creepy thought."

This has happened before within the world we used to call Christendom -- one very important reason that the Spanish were so vicious five centuries ago is that they had spend the previous seven centuries ruled by and/or fighting the Moslems.

They aren't Americans

One of the current crop of politically correct leftists dishonesties is that various individual Islamic terrorists are "Americans". In almost no instance is this true -- having set foot on American soil does not make one an American. For instance, the Boston Marathon bombers were not Americans.

In the most recent instance of Islamic mass terror/murder, the assault on the shopping mall in Nairobi, it is being reported that up to three of the murdering scum are "Americans". They are not Americans; never were and never will be. They are Somali Moslems that our insane "liberal" ("soft" leftist) rulers imported to our shores as a sub-project of their on-going goal of destroying the American people/nation.

Names of Democrats on House Oversight Committee who walked out on Benghazi victim family members

Names of Democrats on House Oversight Committee who walked out on Benghazi victim family members

h/t Bob Parks

Plain as noses on faces

Diana West: We Give Up? -- "We [won't] recognize them killing us, and they don't recognize us, period."

The problem isn't something called "Islamism" or "radical Islam"; as has been true for the past 1400 years, the problem is Islam. Period. As the joke puts it: "Q: What's the difference between a 'Moslem extremist' and a 'moderate Moslem'? A: The distance to the bomb."

But, of course, the deeper problem is us: for we allow those who hate us and our history, who desire above all things the destruction of our history and traditions, which is to say, the murder of our common life as a people, to rule us and to dictate what we may even think.

Citizen, are you willing to submit to Islam?

Or, to put the question another way, "Are you a citizen, or are you a subject?"

Lawrence Auster: Obama makes good on his pledge in Cairo: maker of “Innocence of Muslims” video is sentenced to a year in prison

'Did your son always have ...?'

So far as I know, no one has publicly noticed something telling concerning Joe "Gaff-o-Matic" Biden's coarse, vulgar, and wholly inappropriate question to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, at the ceremony for the return home of the bodies of the four Americans murdered in Benghazi -- "Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?"

Consider - at the time, the entire supporting staff of alleged-President Obama, and the man himself, were still claiming that:
1) the attack on the consulate was merely a movie-review “gone wrong” - as though that would have any Constitutional relevance, even were it true;
2) and, just as importantly, that US officials didn’t know what had happened during the attack, and couldn’t know until after “an investigation”.

Point 1) has been dealt with previously - the very premise of it is invalid. Yet, nevertheless, this alleged-administration used it as the pretext to arrest, as Hillary Clinton has whispered to Charles Woods that they would do, their designated fall guy, the no-name producer of some You-Tube film-clip that no one had even heard of. To put it another way, this alleged-administration blatantly violated the Constitution with respect to the human rights of a guest in our country … and the very people who were always falsely accusing Bush II, Bush I, and Reagan of violating Americans’ Constitutional-and-human rights said nothing.

Concerning point 2), as we now know - as anyone wishing to know the truth now knows - this alleged-administration knew, in real-time, as it was happening, what was going on in Benghazi. And that three requests for military support were explicitly denied. And further, that somewhere in the chain of command, the order was twice issued to the men there to “stand down”.

It seems that, in the end, Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty disobeyed the order to “stand down”, and engaged in a several-hours battle with the Islamic attackers.

Now, consider again Biden’s crass question: "Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?" Does such a question even make sense if it were true that this alleged-administration hadn’t yet known what had happened? Does such a question even make sense if Biden had not known what had happened.

Does such a question even make sense if Biden had not already known that a mere two Americans, Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty, armed mostly with just what they could carry, had fought for hours against superior numbers armed with rocket launchers and mortars?

===
You know, considering how often over the past four plus years Biden has put his foot into Obama’s mouth -- you see, ol' coal miner Joe is one of those people who cannot resist saying "I know something you don't know" -- it’s kind of surprising they he hasn’t had an “accident” by now.

Leftists always lie

Michael Egnor has a recent post concerning recent events in Araby in light of current and past deliberate actions of the Administration of alleged President Obama -- AND concerning the curious incuriosity of our moral and intellectual superiors in the Team-Obama Press to ask these questions.

Most of the persons who leave comments, such as they are, on Mr Egnor's blog happen to be leftists (and illogical and anti-reason 'atheists' and irrational anti-science DarwinDefenders) ... and the general tone and content of their responses to his post are exactly the sort of dishonesty one expect of leftists (and 'atheists' and DarwinDefenders). Yet, I want especially to draw Gentile Reader's attention to this gem -- "What’s really ironic is that when conservatives talk about hate crime laws they argue against even considering the victim’s sexuality when examining the motives of the perpetrator; fighting against any laws that give that motivation any weight whatsoever. Now, all of a sudden, we need an investigation to see if this terrorist act was also an anti-gay hate crime!

Why the sudden concern? Because Egnor gets to say “Is the Obama administration in a lying frenzy to cover-up the fact that their incompetence and their idiotic effort to add a little Gay Pride to our foreign service”. What Egnor wants is a witch hunt."

'Asking the Wrong Questions'

Laura Rosen Cohen: Asking the Wrong Questions -- "Remember: the only response to "why do they hate us" is "I don't care" whilst simultaneously restocking one's moral, spiritual, philosophical, educational and physical ammunition reserves."

Touching upon Benghazi and consequences

1) On the significant date of September 11, "radical Islamists" (which is to say, Moslems who take seriously the demands/commands of Islam) attack and overrun the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, hunting down and capturing, then murdering (*) the US ambassador, who happened to have been openly "gay", and three other Americans.

(*) There are reports, and official denials, that he was sodomized before or after (or both) the murder.

2) The alleged US Administration claims that this clearly-planned assult, along with protests at, and attacks upon, US Embassies in other Moslem countries is to be blamed upon not the free choices of the attackers and murderers (**), but rather upon the existence of a piss-poor (**') movie "trailer" that no one had seen until then -- and immediately "apologized" to all Moslems everywhere for the fact-and-right of Freedom of Speech in the US.

(**) Which rationalization Moslems ought to take as an insult, for its logical entailment is that they are not moral agents, as you and I are.

(**') The piss-poor YouTube video is an attempt simply to act-out things Moslems thenselves have proudly said about ole' Mo for more than 1000 years.

3) A few days later, officers of the LA County Deputy show up -- in the middle of the night -- at the residence of the man identified as the source of the YouTube video, to "voluntarily" (***) take him in to "answer a few questions" related to possible violations of his parole (****).

(***) Riiight! And what would have happened had he declined the "request" to "voluntarily" come in to "answer a few questions"?

(****) Really? In the middle of the night? Requiring a falanx of officers to "voluntarily" escort a non-violent 55 year-old man in for "questions"? With so-called journalists as part of the deployment?

4) Does no one recall the deliberate provocations to Moslems of hosting "gay" "pride" events at US embassies in Moslem countries? (for example)

4a) So this is how it appears to stand -- if some private person in America states certain truths about Islam or Mohammed that Moslems don't want non-Moslems to understand, and some Moslems claim that at a pretext to riot and/or murder Americans, then the First Amendment has to go. However, if the US government officially and quite in-your-face endorses behaviors that offend most Americans *and* Moslems, and explicitly makes it a point to wave this red-flag in the faces of Moslem, in their own countries, then ... what?

Is it really plausible that the leftists running our government have our best interest at heart?

[edit: 2012/09/28] The B&R Thursday Matinee