Skip to content

DEAR CHRISTIANS: Do You Want To Ignore PERSECUTED Christians To Import Muslims? by Greg Hopkins

February 19, 2017

My friend Greg Hopkins is now writing regularly for Clash Daily.  His latest article is on religion and culture.  He asks us why we ignored persecuted Christians for the last eight years.  Great question.  Please give Greg a read. RM

“When Trump announced that he would give immigration preference to persecuted Christians last week, I rejoiced. Yet I saw little rejoicing from my fellow Christians on social media, especially from those on the liberal side of the pews. Throughout his tenure, Obama ignored the plight of Christians in the Mid-East and Africa who have been murdered, tortured, raped, kidnapped, maimed and driven from their homes in the hundreds of thousands by ISIS. Christians haven’t been persecuted for their faith in such numbers, over such a wide area since the Emperor Domitian. Finally granted asylum here, their plight may end. This is a group who, unlike Muslims, can understand the Christian roots of America’s founding and Constitution, and are willing to assimilate.

“So let me ask my fellow Christians some questions for self-evaluation and prayer. Is your plan to reject admission of your brothers and sisters in the faith for a group of people whose religion is not only antithetical and openly hostile to yours, but who are trapped in a 12th century mentality/culture by that religion?”

Source: DEAR CHRISTIANS: Do You Want To Ignore PERSECUTED Christians To Import Muslims? ⋆ Doug Giles ⋆ #ClashDaily

Berkeley Riots and the Political Climate Necessary for Hothouse Snowflakes

February 19, 2017

Let’s talk about what we saw happen on the University of California campus when Milo Yiannopoulos tried to speak.  We saw outside protesters shut down free speech at the home of the free speech movement.  That riot does not represent most of America.  The riot represents a minority view and could only happen in the special environment of an intolerant Socialist city.  That riot could only take place in the political micro-climate necessary for hothouse snowflakes.uc-berkeley-riots

You see, anyone the leftist thugs don’t agree with is an intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, fascist bigot.  Let’s simply call us fascist bigots or FBs for short.  Yes,  Milo Yiannopoulos and his audience we’re officially dubbed as FBs..even though the speaker was a gay man with Jewish parents who has a black boyfriend.  We are FBs..even if the audience was mostly students from UC Berkeley.

Consider the larger issue from the Socialist point of view.  The protesters had to beat people with metal pipes and burn books in order to stop fascism.  Or, maybe they just like calling names and beating people.  Lots of thugs do.

So the big-government rioters were a little short on issues and an intellectual framework.  Also consider the narrow environment where you can stage such protests and media events.

A few dozen police could have stopped the riot, but they were told not to do so.  The riot was not a matter of insufficient law enforcement resources.  The campus police could have easily stopped the violent riot on campus while still allowing peaceful protest.  Campus police didn’t, even though campus security demanded a seven thousand dollar security fee so that conservatives could speak on the UC campus.  (I think the seven grand was a tax, not a security fee, but we’ll leave that to the 9th circuit court to decide.)  Someone in a position of power, like the Chancellor of UC, Berkeley, Nicholas B. Dirks, probably told campus security to withdraw.  And withdraw they did.

Campus Security was not alone.  They could have asked for help from the local police.  Jesse Arreguin, the mayor of Berkeley, ordered the police to stand back and give the protesters “room for expression.”  The results were predictable.  In case you’ve forgotten, the Mayor of Baltimore told the Baltimore Police to give protesters room to riot before that city burned.  I think the riot was a scripted media event and the riot organizers knew the police would withdraw.

The mayor of Berkeley could have asked for help from the California State Police.  He didn’t ask for help because the riot was politically approved at the highest levels.  It is part of the Socialist party platform to shout down and beat down conservatives.  The interesting question is why.

Socialist politicians and their rich supporters want us to think the Yiannopoulos riot in Berkeley expressed popular rejection of conservative views.  That is the perspective the legacy media tried to sell us.  They are wrong.  The riot was as scripted as a Socialist political convention.  The results were planned before the first ticket was sold, or should I say, before the first ballot was cast.  Building a riot like this wasn’t easy.

There are only a few large Socialist controlled cities where the city mayor would tell the police to withdraw so the media could film a riot.  The list is shorter still, because most US citizens would have stopped the riot even if the local police withdrew.  That sounds like an outrageous claim, but it is true.

Imagine what would happen if a crowd of rioters tried to beat up people and burn businesses in middle america.  The University of California Berkeley campus is a “gun-free” zone in a “gun-free” city embedded in an anti-gun state.  The rioters came with clubs, pipes and sledgehammers while the audience who wanted to hear  Milo Yiannopoulos speak were disarmed.  You wouldn’t find that political micro-climate across most of the United States.  To make my point, imagine if Milo Yiannopoulos spoke at Texas A&M.  The peaceful audience would defend themselves when they were attacked by the violent rioters.  The audience wouldn’t start a fight, but they could end one.  I doubt the police would have much to do.  Snowflakes melt pretty quickly when they get outside of their Socialist Hothouse heated with political donations.

The Socialists tried to label us as deplorable, but that didn’t work. Now, they need to paint conservatives as intolerant.  Democrat politicians and their backers want to brand small-government conservatives as extremists.  The Berkeley riot was the latest media event to do so.  That is pure propaganda like the Ferguson riots back in 2014 and the Baltimore riots in 2015.  As a propaganda tool, the riot has worn thin.  

Most of us are tolerant..perhaps too much so.  We want to hear issues openly discussed and we assume good will from others.  That belief isn’t always justified.  It is the Socialists who only tolerate one point of view and claim the right to shout us down rather than engage in open debate.  If you doubt me, then ask how many conservatives sit as tenured faculty on the UC Berkeley Department of Sociology, or who sit on the Berkeley City Council.  The faculty in our elite universities are more segregated than the residents of any gated community.  For that matter, how many conservatives are in the legacy media?  There are a handful, even though most of us describe our views as politically conservative.  Their bias is showing as they try to stereotype us.branding-conservatives

Yeah.  Nice try with the latest public relations campaign trying to re-brand Socialism.  I am not a Fascist Bigot, even though they call me one.  Neither are you.  This riot tells us far more about Socialist California politicians and the legacy media than it does about our beliefs..or the beliefs of Milo Yiannopoulos..if we were allowed to hear them.

Setting My Priorities

February 11, 2017

My wife shared this with me.  She manages her own business, so she has to set priorities all the time.  Thank you, Jen.  It is a timely topic on the “slow facts” blog.

I’ll post this at work..and share it with my readers as well.  It is easy to let the urgent crowd out the important.

priorities

Ensure that Good People are Still Able to Do Good Things

February 10, 2017
tags: ,

I wrote about “Being Tolerant and “Pro-Choice” for Self-Defense“.  One of my readers said it all better than I did.

Frank in FL said, “Evil people will do evil things; crazy people will do crazy things; stupid people will do stupid things. Any solution to this problem cannot involve making it impossible for good people to do good things.”

I agree.  Any solution must ensure that good people are still able to do good things.tip the scales

Being Tolerant and “Pro-Choice” for Self-Defense

February 9, 2017
coexist-firearm-gun-manufacturer-logo-sticker

I couldn’t believe it. I heard a news story where a person said, ‘The police should protect me on campus. Self-defense isn’t my job.’ While that is a fine attitude for a child, it seemed perversely immature from an adult. If you’re not sure where you stand on that issue, then let me bring up some obvious points.

Criminals are a fact of life.  The first point is that there are bad people in our world. They are even on campus.  These bad people don’t worry if they hurt us. In fact, we are as insignificant as an insect to them.  They will simply take what they want.  It could be our wallet, our body, or even our life.  It is hard for us to understand their point of view.  We don’t go around looking for innocent people to victimize.  They do.

Ask the experts.  I wish bad people were not with us, but they are.  It can be hard to believe that bad people exist because we don’t see them every day. If you think that your town is immune, then please go ask an expert on crime in your area.  Fortunately, these experts are available every hour of the day or night.  They are happy to talk to you.  Please walk into your local police station and ask the officer at the desk if there are bad people in your town.

Take your time.  I’ll wait.

You don’t stop evil by being defenseless.

It is your job to protect those you love.  Our immature friend said the police were there to protect her.  As much as I appreciate the police, it isn’t their job to protect you or me as individuals.  Protecting us from an immediate threat isn’t even near the top of their job description.  The police catch repeat criminals and collect evidence for prosecutors.  That is their job.

The police don’t have magic powers.  I don’t blame the police that they can’t keep me safe.  Protecting me is an impossible job for any police department.  In practical terms, it is only after we’ve been threatened, robbed, beaten or raped that an unarmed citizen even has a chance to call the police.  You are already a victim by that time.  The criminals are long gone before the police even get the call for help.  That is why law enforcement officers ask us to protect ourselves until they arrive.  Again, you can ask them if you don’t believe me.  I’ll wait.

Self-defense should be left up to us.  Self-defense advocates, like me, say you should carry a legally owned firearm, but only if you want one.  Anti-rights advocates go further.  They say we should not be allowed to protect ourselves even if we want to.  They say, “I don’t want to protect myself, and you shouldn’t be allowed to either.”  That attitude imposes their bigoted views on others.  It is intolerant and dictatorial.

We can’t be allowed to have whatever they don’t want for themselves.

You know best.  Most of us feel differently.  We have a live-and-let-live attitude that says, ‘You know what you need better than I do.’  Sure, I want you to protect yourself and your family, but I’d never force you to do so.  I even want you to get a gun because I think firearms are useful tools for self-defense.  I also want you to get training so you can do the right thing at the right time.  I want lots of honest people to have guns so they can protect the innocent.  That reduces violent crime and keeps us all safer.. even anti-gun advocates.  Yeah, that is what I want, but the choice is up to you.

Anti-rights advocates disagree.  Anti-rights advocates think the police should come with guns and disarm honest gun owners.  That sounds violent to me.  I’m tolerant and “Pro-Choice” when it comes to self-defense.  So are most of us.

Help me here.  Tell me which one of us is violent, and which one of us is for peaceful co-existence?

coexist-firearm-gun-manufacturer-logo-sticker

McConnell: No Federal Money for Investigating Voter Fraud – Breitbart

February 6, 2017

Did the Republican leadership ever have a spine?  Evidence says no.

RM

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said he would not spend federal funds investigating what President Trump says is “massive voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election.”McConnell told CNN’s Jake Tapper that, although there are instances of voter fraud, he believes that it’s not “as widespread as Trump claims” and that combating voter fraud should be an issue “best left to the states” instead of the federal government.

Source: McConnell: No Federal Money for Investigating Voter Fraud – Breitbart

Rob Morse on Striker Radio with Steve Pauwels

February 5, 2017

Red State Radio is an online radio station.  I interviewed with my friend Steve Pauwels.  We talked about the excuses Chicago politicians make for figuratively killing their city, and the literal murders in Chicago each night.  I wrote about it here.

red-state-radio

On the right side of the Red State Radio page are two boxes playing whatever is broadcast at the moment on the Prime and Encore channels respectively. Click on the play arrow, the broadcast ought to come online

The show plays Sunday morning, afternoon and evening and Monday AM
Saturday: 11 PM
Sunday: 5 AM, 1 PM, 5 PM. 10 PM
Monday: 6 AM

Encore Channel:
Sunday: 2 AM, 6 AM, 9 AM, 6 PM, 9 PM
Monday: 5 AM, 8 AM

Tune in at RedStateRadio.com

%d bloggers like this: