Intermarkets' Privacy Policy Support
Donate to Ace of Spades HQ! Recent Entries
Democrat Cities Preparing for Democrat Violence In Wake of Trump Victory
Google Is Telling People Where to Vote for Harris -- But Won't Tell You Where to Vote For Trump Tea Leaves More Like Flea Peeves amirite Be On the Look Out: Many Ballots Have a Small Mark for Harris Already "Accidentally" Marked on the Ballot Joe Rogan Endorses Trump Go Vote [by Dave in Fla] Mid-Morning Art Thread The Morning Report 11/5/24 Daily Tech News 5 November 2024 Monday Overnight Open Thread (11/4/24) Election Eve Edition Absent Friends
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024 Captain Hate 2023 moon_over_vermont 2023 westminsterdogshow 2023 Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022 Dave In Texas 2022 Jesse in D.C. 2022 OregonMuse 2022 redc1c4 2021 Tami 2021 Chavez the Hugo 2020 Ibguy 2020 Rickl 2019 Joffen 2014 AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups
|
« Conservative Wins Portugal Presidency |
Main
| AoS Lifestyle Persecuted by NYPD »
January 23, 2006
Pope Benedict feels that 'Islam is incapable of reform'Diana West of the Washington Times hits us HARD with some non-primary source pessimistic action from da pope. Apparently, according to his friend Father Joseph D. Fessio, the pope has been saying things like---gasp!---"handicapped" instead of "handicapable"...and that he believes that "in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it." Now, Benedict, that's just a wee bit hyperbolic, is it not? NO possibility? According to his friend, the pope believes there's no way to change Islam because there's no way to reinterpret the Koran — i.e., change Koranic teachings on infidels, women, polygamy, penal codes and other markers of Islamic law — in such a way as to propel Islam into happy coexistence with modernity. Color me crazy, but I do believe that there are some things we Helpless Westerners (TM) can do to assist. Hot, steamy hat-tip action to my friend Preston @ Six Meat Buffet. Guest-blogger Feisty can be found here for ALL your...mmm....blogging needs. posted by Feisty at 08:39 PM
CommentsActually Ace, the Pope is 100% correct. What we are doing in the Middle East is to try and reform the countries, not Islam itself. We are trying to make people realize that Islam doesn't have all the answers to society's questions, but Islam itself cannot have a reformation in the way Christianity had because the Koran is believed to be the literal word of God. Kinda difficult to tell God you are just going to disobey his will and do what you feel like if you're raised in a culture where your will is meaningless compared to the will of Allah. We're planting a seed of doubt into the Middle East as to whether the Islamic faith is the one true faith. And that's a very good thing. Posted by: NJRob on January 23, 2006 08:52 PM
Oops, that comment is directed to Fiesty since he wrote it and not Ace. My apologies. Posted by: NJRob on January 23, 2006 08:54 PM
Psst. Disagree with me, not aceypoo. I think the fact that women voted in full force in Afghanistan is proof that Islam can change. Posted by: Feisty on January 23, 2006 08:54 PM
The notion of voting in Iraq as response to the Pope is a non-sequitur. The Pope was talking Islam as a religion, not Islamic society. The Democracy that's going on in Iraq is in stark contrast to the sharia requirements of the Koran. To the extent that muslim societies reform themselves it will be because they, as a society choos to disregard certain portions of Islamic doctrine. Posted by: Russell Wardlow on January 23, 2006 08:55 PM
Feisty, It's far from clear whether democratic processes will lead to actual liberalization -- so far, everyone is voting for the Islamist parties in places where elections have been held: Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine. The old Arab bugaboos of tribalism, endemic corruption, and xenophobia may prohibit the rise of a truly civilized modern state (based on the rule of law, with a clear separation of government powers and an independant judiciary not based on Shari'a). Father Fessio simply alludes to the fact that most Muslims -- whether Sunni or Shi'a -- take the Koran to be the actual and literal Word of God. God spoke Arabic to Mohammed, who faithfully wrote down God's words. Many Arabs believe that the Koran can only be truly understood in Arabic, as this is the language God used to Mohammed; any translation is by definition a bastardization of the work. Many non-Muslims still don't understand this core truth about Islam. The literalists are not the fringe as they are in the Christian and Jewish faiths. They are in the vast mainstream of the Muslim faith. Frankly, I find the prospects of any truly civilized and modern civil society in the Arab world to be pretty dim -- Iraq is an experiment, and it is an experiment whose success will not be known for many years. But we need to understand that this experiment may fail in the end. That doesn't make the experiment itself a failure; it will teach us something valuable about the nature of both Arabs and the Muslim faith. Posted by: Monty on January 23, 2006 08:59 PM
Most Iraqis aren't very devout. They're the muslim equivalent of "C&E Christians". ("Christmas and Easter Christians"; people who go to church once or twice a year at most.) They probably believe that Allah expects them to be good, but they don't know much about islamic theology. Posted by: on January 23, 2006 09:04 PM
anonymous: The problem isn't actually one of theology; it's one of a backward culture and closed tribalism, interpreted through an austere Islamic prism. Most Iraqis (and Egyptians, and Syrians, and Moroccans, etc. ad nauseam) take their cues not from civic leaders, but from local Imams and mullahs. Nepotism, corruption, and bribery are not evils to be avoided; they are simply artifacts of tribal life. Remember: the true translation of Islam is not "peace". It is "submission". Submission to authority, to God's will, to teachers, to leaders. It's no accident that the most common saying among Arabs is insh'allah, or "it will be if God wills it". It bespeaks a very fatalistic and static worldview that resists change very strongly. Posted by: Monty on January 23, 2006 09:16 PM
Viewing Islam - or any other religion - as a concrete rulebook immune to human interpretation is a mistake. One might make a very cogent and accurate argument that Islam is much more resistant to change because it's logically set up as immutable; I understand this. But it relies on immutable human devoutness and cooperation with its tenants to truly be "incapable of reform." And once culture and society reforms in the Islamic world, what do you think is going to win? The strict immutable structure of Islam? Or the desire of the individual to see Islam through adaptive eyes that maintain the religion and identity, yet embrace new cultural norms that violate historically strict tenants? Newsflash: if you think that we can change culture but can't in turn change Islam, then you've logically boxed the effort to modernize the Islamic world into assured failure. Why? Because a billion muslims aren't going to suddenly forsake their religion completely for Pokemon. Posted by: Bill from INDC on January 23, 2006 09:21 PM
Thank God Il Papa doesn't play PC games. A very wordly African student of mine maintains that any Muslim nation in Africa is incapable of supporting democracy. In such a nation, if you disagree with your enemy, you kill him, and the disagreement is over. We see this in the tribal genocides that continue every day. Do we honestly think they would "submit" to democracy? I can say as a Catholic that our faith has evolved very little in 2000 years, which should not be surprising to anyone who understands the nature of a dogmatic religion. But we have tried to adapt to the evolving civilization for better and worse. As Monty says, it is truly an experiment. Posted by: KevlarChick on January 23, 2006 09:33 PM
This is slightly old news. "It bespeaks a very fatalistic and static worldview that resists change very strongly." Which is why all the cultural and societal values we hold in high regard are abscent from Islamic societies. The Islamic world cut itself off from the development of thought that has led to western philosophy. The literalness of the Koran meant that a major rational for questioning anything is not present in Islamic society. When the Caliph burned the last remains of the Library at Alexandria he justified it by saying if its not in the Koran its blasphemous and if its in the Koran it is redundant. Posted by: Iblis on January 23, 2006 09:35 PM
Bill, I hope that you are right>. Let us agree on this: neither one of us will know the outcome of this experiment for many years. Someday when we are old and gray, you may story me along with tales of our great liberalization of the Middle East; or I may sing you a sad song about the radioactive wastes that used to be Arabia, and about a people who found themselves unable to master a fire that eventually consumed them. But I hope even more that we two are still around in our old age to swap these tales. Posted by: Monty on January 23, 2006 09:38 PM
Let us agree on this: neither one of us will know the outcome of this experiment for many years. Agreed, 100%. Posted by: Bill from INDC on January 23, 2006 09:50 PM
What's happening to Christianity in Europe may happen to Islam in the Middle East. Posted by: on January 23, 2006 10:03 PM
Josie, What's happening to Christianity in Europe? Posted by: BrewFan on January 23, 2006 10:08 PM
To be all Logic 101 on ya'all, I was saying that while I agree with the pope's purported statement that Islam is the latin of religions...static..., I do not agree with the op-ed columnist's assertion, nor the general subtext of articles about this subject, that it follows that we should assume that Muslim cultures are immune to change. It is an experiment, sure, but I also think the natural state of being is freedom, and that people, when given the chance, will move towards that goal in a way that is acceptable to them. Change is rarely sweeping, and that'll frustrate the west for decades to come. Posted by: Feisty on January 23, 2006 10:24 PM
I also think the natural state of being is freedom See, Feisty, this is where we disagree. Freedom, as we understand it, is a very modern invention -- throughout most of human history, we lived short, brutal, and mostly anonymous lives. Freedom evolved -- it began in Greece, and evolved in fits and starts. Think about what it means: not just freedom to move (physical freedom), but also freedom to speak and freedom to think (which translates to freedom of spirit). I am not convinced that what we call "freedom" is anything like universal: there are too many examples to the contrary. It took the west centuries to achieve the freedom we have, and it took the abolition of tribalism and the imposition of the rule of law to achieve it. The Arab tradition has none of these things (nor does Africa, which goes a long way to explaining why it remains such a basket case). Posted by: Monty on January 23, 2006 10:35 PM
Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248,50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899). "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities...but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled,the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome." The pope is right. Islam is per se unreformable. If muslims cotton to modernity, they will do so at the price of abandoning Islam. To speak of the reform of Islam is a bit like discussing the reform of a flat-earth doctrine. The process of 'reform' would involve rejecting the fundamental tenets of the creed. Consider the Koran's injunction on charging interest on a loan: But trade has been sanctioned and usury forbidden by God. Those who are warned by their Lord and desist will keep (what they have taken of interest) already, and the matter will rest with God. But those who revert to it again are the residents of Hell where they will abide forever. So you'll go to hell if you give someone a home equity loan. The language could not be more clear. The only way to 'reform' Islam to conform to modern practice is simply to throw out entirely what it says on the issue. This holds true for almost everything the Koran says, from polygamy to wife-beating to executing homosexuals to beheading infidels, etc. To call this process 'reform' is to abuse the term. Christian reform movements have argued that one should get back to basics and live as Christ did, which is useful since Jesus, whatever else you think of him, was an exemplary individual. Islamic reform movements likewise that one should get back to basics and live as Mohammed did. Herein lies the problem: Mohammed was a very different character from Jesus, and thus we face the disheartening realization: what we are witnessing in Wahhabism is in fact the Islamic reform movement. Posted by: caspera on January 23, 2006 10:43 PM
I think the reason there are human beings at all (that we were not killed by lions nor did we die in a drought or famine millions of years ago) is that humans are uniquely capable of free and complex thought and acting upon those thoughts. The problem comes when people figure out they can gain an advantage by using other people and DENYING them freedom. Posted by: Feisty on January 23, 2006 10:45 PM
You know what would give me hope? If there were some grand Islamic conclave like the Roman Catholic Vatican II conference. This happened in the ninth and tenth centuries, which is when the haditha/i> were collected, and when shari'a was codified. But these "outer shells" of Islamic philosophy have essentially remained frozen in time since then, and have become as immutable to many Muslims as the Koran itself. Of all Islamic sects, the Sufi sect is probably the most amenable to change: they are the more spiritually focused and inwardly turned of Muslims. Their faith is almost Buddhist in nature. The salafist strain, however, is authoritarian and literalist in the extreme, and unfortunately this is the core of Sunni belief. And Sunnis comprise about 80% of all Muslims in the world. Freedom, to a true believer in the salfist tradition, is heresy because it subordinates God's will to man's will. Freedom is a sin in this interpretation. When people speak blithely of Muslims "seeing the light", they fail to understand that to many Muslims, it is we who do not see the light. Muslims see "freedom" in a very different (and incompatible) way than we do. Which is not to say that liberalism cannot work, eventually. But it will require Islam itself to change, and there is little past evidence that this is going to happen any time soon. If at all. Posted by: Monty on January 23, 2006 10:57 PM
Monty's right! Thank you, Monty. Posted by: Muslihoon on January 23, 2006 11:22 PM
The Pope is, of course, 100% right. Islam as a religion is incapable of changing. The very name means "submission" to the will of Allah as interpreted by the Imans. There is no freedom of thought as that concept is known in the West. Either you are of the House of Islam, a believer, and a follower of the true faith, or you are a member of the House of War and may be enslaved, killed, converted or forced into dhimmi status where you recognize the superiority of Islam, pay special taxes, and live as Islamic leaders allow you to live. Islamic countries can reform only to the extent they secularize, and this is most likely not going to happen too much if the success of Islamic political parties in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, etc is anything to go by. The West must prepare for war or surrender, those are your only choices. Posted by: BattleofthePyramids on January 23, 2006 11:28 PM
To assume that the Muslim world will not borrow anything from the Western world is foolish because they will, but what they adopt may not be to our liking. They will acquire new medicine, new technology, new weaponry, and even to a limited degree, new media (the internet and sattelite television). However, they will not adopt secularism (unless they are forced to from outside or within), equal rights for women, equal rights for minorities, or freedom of speech and assembly. The first batch of stuff doesn't help us and actually could be used against us (e.g. higher demographics with this new medicine and the obvious dangers of ANY Muslim power obtaining new weaponry). The second batch of stuff could help the West and more importantly, the Muslims themselves but for the various reasons Monty pointed out, it cannot happen. Islam is immutable. There is no denying it. Either one accepts all of Islam and follows every rule or one is a hyprocrite or an apostate, and we all know what happens to them in the Muslim world. Sufism is a strange case and the comparison to Buddhism is problematic. During its genesis the various forms of Sufism were syncretic for various reasons. Sufis in South Asia adopted some aspects from Hinduism in order to attract more Indian converts, but the syncreticism seems to dissapate once it is brought to the attention to the Sufis that they are not following the straight path. For example, many Sufis prostrate themselves in front of the tombs of the saints, but it is pointed out as being shirk and those Sufis who do not change this practice are considered to be bad Muslims. That is the only way Islam can change. If it is proven to be deviating from its proper path. Despite what Stephen Schwartz says, we should not look towards Sufism as an enlightened example for all Muslims. Keep in mind, they still believe in jihad and in fact most of the jihadis in Chechnya are Sufi (albeit with some Wahabbi influence) The best thing we can do with regards to the Muslim world instead of foolishly trying to change it through "democratization" is to find different energy sources and get off of oil so we can find ways to ostracize it and contain it. Perhaps during this period, when the Muslim world is weakened, we can think of some better strategies for dealing with the terrorist threat it presents us and the demographic threat it presents Europe. Posted by: arch on January 23, 2006 11:57 PM
I'll bet anything if a bunch of women were in charge of re-translating the Koran, it would be a lot better. Of course, all references to north, south, east and west would be replaced by different variations on the basic template of "on the right, if you're coming FROM town..." But hey, omelet/eggs/etc. Posted by: Dogstar on January 24, 2006 02:31 AM
Over the next two generations, most people in the Middle East will gradually stop believing in Islam. Posted by: on January 24, 2006 03:06 AM
Fr Fessio has clarified his remarks. Posted by: fidens on January 24, 2006 03:48 AM
Fr Fessio has clarified his remarks. Not so much clarified as backpedaled in panic. Posted by: geoff on January 24, 2006 04:04 AM
The Iraqi experiment in democracy will probably be decided this year - not in future decades. Posted by: Kubla on January 24, 2006 04:31 AM
Feisty, Good conversation here. I believe Monty is right. I note that Muslihoon agreed with him. I wonder whether the proper tack to take on reforming Islam is to generate some kind of Vatican II for Muslim clierics or whether it is to fight Islam with all our soul. Is there another way? I have seen the comments regarding eliminating dependence on Muslim Oil, but the laws of physics remain immutable. There is no possible way to do without oil and still be able to eat, drink and sleep with the lights on at midnight. It will never happen until nuclear power and a hydrogen economy become possible suppliers. And then only the rich nations will have power, the poor will live by fire in the wilderness. This is not a scenario conducive to peaceful coexistence with anyone. So good thoughts, Feisty and everyone, but there are no easy solutions. Force will have to be used to keep the peace --- forever. The world cop's job will never be over. Subsunk Posted by: Subsunk on January 24, 2006 04:59 AM
FATHER FESSIO RECANTED. This version of the Pope's reality has been superceded. Sorry. Posted by: Paul Freedman on January 24, 2006 09:59 AM
If anyone's interested, Roger Scruton has an interesting discussion on Islamic society (vis-a-vis Western, Christian society) in the Jan. 2006 New Criterion. It might be subscription only; I could dig up some quotes if anyone's game. Posted by: El Ricko on January 24, 2006 10:01 AM
FATHER FESSIO RECANTED. This version of the Pope's reality has been superceded. Sorry. Oh, well! That fixes everything, doesn't it? All of the problems we were just talking about magically disappeared! Boy, is that a load off or what? C'mon everybody! Group hug! Posted by: Monty on January 24, 2006 10:03 AM
My dear Mr. Monty: the post was not an ironic comment on the mistaken views of those who believe that Islam is a religion that inculcates anti-democratic values, rather a sophisticated and brilliantly analytic apercu on the compromises theology must make to political correctness. As I understand it, the remarks were amended to clarify that the Pople was merely referring to the special value of direct revelation Islamic believers place in the Koran--the Koran itself, as a divinely revealed document is not subject to democratic debate. However, the Pope did not intend, according to the good Father to imply that Islam, as a religion, as a faith, has anything but the blah blah flkflase sdf;lks f/k cvl a .v . .... Posted by: Paul Freedman on January 24, 2006 10:27 AM
And, it is in the spirit of democracy and love that an Iranian official has announced that should there be any sanctions on Iran for its peaceful and progressive study of applied quantum mechanics, Iran will shut down the Straits of Hormuz. Posted by: Paul Freedman on January 24, 2006 10:31 AM
Back in school I read a comment from an anthropologist, Mary Catherine Bateson, who had done a fair amount of work in Iran. She said the basic difference between Christianity and Islam was that Christianity was a writhing mass of contradictions, subject to rival interpretations from a dozen different theological and philosophical angles. And that was a good thing. Islam, she said, “just lies there flat on the page.” That’s why reforming Islamic cultures is going to be very, very tough. Unlike the Bible, the Quran is God speaking in the first person, and as far back as al-Ghazali the Muslims decided that intepretation of any kind wasn’t an option. There’s not the slightest equivalent in Islam for the evolution that took Europe from Catholicism through the Reformation and Enlightenment and eventually to post-Christianity. Instead, Islam has gone from being the wealthiest and most advanced sector of the world five centuries ago to its present status as Baltic Avenue on the global Monopoly board because: a) technological advances always implied social change; b) any social change that conflicted with shari’a was forbidden; and c) shari’a explicitly encompassed every aspect of life. So the Pope and the Taliban are right about the nature of the confrontation. The reformers—feminists, democracy advocates, all the rest—are right on the level of basic human aspirations, but they’re kidding themselves if they think that what they’re doing isn’t antithetical to the basic spirit of Islam. It’s fine with me if they completely redefine their religion and keep calling it Islam, but being a Muslim reformer and being a Christian reformer are , literally, worlds apart. Posted by: utron on January 24, 2006 10:47 AM
Iran will shut down the Straits of Hormuz Oh, they may try. But the U. S. Navy may have a thing or two to say about that. Posted by: Monty on January 24, 2006 10:51 AM
They tried before. It was, an unimpressive effort. Posted by: Dave in Texas on January 24, 2006 10:53 AM
To extent utron's remarks: The Shi'a an Sunni schism is not theological, so using that as a basis for an "Islam can change" argument is not valid. The schism between Shi'a and Sunni is one of succession of Caliphs, and the investment of corporeal authority. In terms of Koranic belief, and adherence to the hadiths and shari'a as the only basis of law. I must say that the Sufi branch of Islam does give one a ray of hope. But it is a very pale and weak ray; the Sufis are roundly hated by both Shi'a and Sunni as heretics, and comprise less than 2% of all Muslim believers. The main problem confronting Islam in terms of reform is that there is no fixed heirarchy -- all Muslims are equal in God's eyes. Imams and mullahs have studied and trained, but there is no formal elections process -- one may become an Imam simply by declaring oneself to be so, and gathering a flock of followers. Influential clerics can issue fatwas to "rightly guide" their followers, but these fatwas are not binding on Muslims as a whole (and are often the target of competing fatwas by other clerics). Posted by: Monty on January 24, 2006 10:59 AM
and I think that the Pope agrees with you Monty, plus I think the Catholic Church, with its emphasis on revelation and reason, on Divine law and natural law, holds that Church teaching of Scripture itself encourages intellectual inquiry--that Luther and the Protestant movements did not exhaust the possibilities of reform. But the Pope, from what I read, holds out the hope publicly that Islamic religious culture in the broadest sense is "reformable"--notwithstanding your observation that plurality in Islam has led to fundamentalist retrenchment rather than Western-style inquiry. Posted by: Paul Freedman on January 24, 2006 11:33 AM
Dave, when did the Iranian regieme challenge freedom of shipping in the Straits? Posted by: Paul Freedman on January 24, 2006 11:35 AM
Dave, when did the Iranian regieme challenge freedom of shipping in the Straits? 1987. Posted by: geoff on January 24, 2006 12:03 PM
I think that it is worth mentioning that most Muslims do not want a "Reformation" because they do not see anything wrong with Islam. That does not mean they do not see anything wrong with their society, far from it. They see anything "cultural" or "political" imported from the West as corrupting their society whether it is one of their dictators (which they associate with the West eventhough they are homegrown) or Oprah. The general consensus among the Muslim world is that in order for society to be "good" it must be Islamic because they only associate "the good" with Islam. Goodness does not exist outside of Islam and that is why evil is associated with the infidel. Islam is a complete program for the Muslim world. It provides culture, political structure, religion, and philosophy. The level of corruption and poverty in the Muslim world is never blamed on Islam, but rather on imperialist (infidel) meddling. Muslims were content with the Ottoman caliphate despite the blatant corruption and poverty, but they are not happy with the rise of the modern nation state even if their living standards and freedoms have gotten better because it is still an infidel invention. Posted by: arch on January 24, 2006 12:05 PM
Post a comment
| The Deplorable Gourmet A Horde-sourced Cookbook [All profits go to charity] Top Headlines
It's a long day today, so I'm going to go out for some exercise between 4:30 and six. I'll have a post in draft to cover the time, but if something big happens during this time -- cobs, please post it.
It won't be until 6pm when we start getting vote counts and early exit polls (not that the latter count for anything -- they're always way off). So I figure I can sneak out before then.
Pornographer two decades past her sell-by date honored by witches, for some reason
I'll tell you one thing: Leftwing omen will have standing to complain about men and their video games the minute they give up their childish, deranged "witchcraft" obsession. Videogames are a sign of immaturity? Okay, that could be true. But tell me, would you agree it's also immature to get together with some 50-year-old tweenagers and pretend to "cast spells" on Reddit threads?
ShoeOnHead ponder the Democrat-Media Industry's confusion about why the men they despise and degrade don't want to vote for them or watch them
Twitter claim: Hot Air's Jazz Shaw has passed at the young age of 65
Requiescat in pace (if true)
Texas poll from GOP-aligned Cygnal: Trump +8, Cruz +4
The Democrats have successfully predicted 12 of their last zero statewide/federal wins in Texas BREAKING: Bill Clinton heads to New Hampshire on Friday to campaign for Kamala Harris I feel like this is a trick question
Here's the Tapper Files as a collected thread. No twitter needed.
Thanks to andycanuck. I didn't realize this was hard for people to read. BTW, it's stuff I already told you on the blog.
Kamala tosses another salad, again unable to answer why she hasn't been able to execute her (secret) plans to fix the country while in office
She can say "i'm not the president" all she likes -- she hasn't even offered any proposals. Remember the alleged dullard Dan Quayle? He was always issuing proposals. True, a lot of these came from Bill Kristol, his advisor, who then allowed people to credit him with these proposals (permitting the "Quayle's Brain" nickname), but he was pumping out ideas and initiatives. And what has Kamala done? She can't even announce her proposals when she's running for president. She still has plans to have plans and intentions to find some intentions.
Trump arrives in Allentown PA for a rally.
The Nazi-Democrat Party mayor of Allentown attempted to block the rally
Kamala: "We must acknowledge we are a nation of immigrants, and I will work with congress to pass 'immigration reform,' including an 'earned path to citizenship'"
Her ugly, weird San Francisco/Canadian accent is killing me, it's pure catshit
Kamala at the site of the KKK Rally: "I will have a to-do list on day one" (but not right now, my dog ate my homework and I'm waiting for him to pass it)
She plans to have a plan and she intends to have some intentions
Incredible ad from MAHA (Make America Healthy Again): Kamala Harris, an authoritarian lightweight bubble-brain, openly brags about being able to throw people in jail "with the stroke of a pen" and making sure they cannot ever again get gainful employment or be accepted in society, as she brags about prosecuting parents for their children's truancy
Oh, and her objection to truancy isn't that these children aren't learning -- the kids who go to school in the left's government failure factories also aren't learning. No, her objection is that because these kids are not on the government's lists, the state is losing $1.4 billion in federal funds per year. Thanks to Jay in PA Also, back when everyone knew she was a horrible person but running for President, the Huffington Post even wrote a long story on her truancy nuttiness. Jonathan Capehart you say? Well who am I to dispute the claims of such an august Real Journalist?
Mika Brzezinski is literally on the verge of tears as she melts down over Hamas' 10/7 Terror Rapes
Just kidding, she was fine with that. She's crying about Drumpf. Recent Comments
IllTemperedCur:
"
Isn't Bette Midler that fat toad on the View?
..."
CaliGirl: " That's what I thought, too. I was paid $2.35/ ..." The Central Scrutinizer: "533 This kind of makes sense. Dems rarely tout the ..." AlaBAMA : "Wouldn't it be interesting if the Dem vote totals ..." Doof: "[I] Finished my gifted 12er shortly after returnin ..." Sponge - F*ck Joe Biden: "[i]Did we not know google is evil before this? Po ..." JQ: "Was making a car payment a weekend, tho. Posted b ..." Marcus T: "I think it’s funny that Dem’s have fou ..." garrett: ">>It was $2.25 way back when I waited tables. Was ..." Nova Local: "535 Why would VA being called early for Harris be ..." ShainS -- In Trump's America, Garbage Throws Out YOU! [/b][/i][/s][/u] : "Looks like the steal in Pennsylvania is massive. H ..." TheJamesMadison, finding suspense, madness, and humanity with Michael Powell: "539 511 This kind of makes sense. Dems rarely tout ..." Bloggers in Arms
Behind The Black CutJibNewsletter The Pipeline Second City Cop Talk Of The Town with Steve Noxon Belmont Club Chicago Boyz Cold Fury Da Goddess Daily Pundit Dawn Eden Day by Day (Cartoon) EduWonk Enter Stage Right The Epoch Times Grim's Hall Victor Davis Hanson Hugh Hewitt IMAO Instapundit JihadWatch Kausfiles Lileks/The Bleat Memeorandum (Metablog) Outside the Beltway Patterico's Pontifications The People's Cube Powerline RedState Reliapundit Viking Pundit WizBang Some Humorous Asides
Kaboom!
Thanksgivingmanship: How to Deal With Your Spoiled Stupid Leftist Adultbrat Relatives Who Have Spent Three Months Reading Slate and Vox Learning How to Deal With You You're Fired! Donald Trump Grills the 2004 Democrat Candidates and Operatives on Their Election Loss Bizarrely I had a perfect Donald Trump voice going in 2004 and then literally never used it again, even when he was running for president. A Eulogy In Advance for Former Lincoln Project Associate and Noted Twitter Pestilence Tom Nichols Special Guest Blogger Rich "Psycho" Giamboni: If You Touch My Sandwich One More Time, I Will Fvcking Kill You Special Guest Blogger Rich "Psycho" Giamboni: I Must Eat Jim Acosta Special Guest Blogger Tom Friedman: We Need to Talk About What My Egyptian Cab Driver Told Me About Globalization Shortly Before He Began to Murder Me Special Guest Blogger Bernard Henri-Levy: I rise in defense of my very good friend Dominique Strauss-Kahn Note: Later events actually proved Dominique Strauss-Kahn completely innocent. The piece is still funny though -- if you pretend, for five minutes, that he was guilty. The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility The Dowd-O-Matic! The Donkey ("The Raven" parody) Archives
Contact
Ace:aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com CBD: cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com Buck: buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com joe mannix: mannix2024 at proton.me MisHum: petmorons at gee mail.com J.J. Sefton: sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com |