previous post next post  

Dusty Drops In

By Dusty (AKA Attila of Argghhh!) on September 5, 2006 | | Comments (5)

[He did it late last night - and, as usual, his stuff ought to be it's own post, instead of crammed into the bottom of the H&I.]

John! Quit it! You want to give me a freakin' heart attack?!? Naming a school after an actual, no shite 21st century military hero? What's Kos gonna think? Atrios? I gotta sit down, I think I'm getting a case of the vapors...the horror!

Or not. In fact, I think I'll just salute smartly (standard greeting to MoH winners, regardless of rank, for those who didn't know) and smile quietly to myself at the gaskets currently blowing in DNC HQ

-P.S. Congressman Murtha? F**k off.

That is all...
************************

I thought I'd be done by now, but I'm not (too much coffee, a bruised rib cage--what you get when a 52-year-old tries to scrimmage with a 9-year-old female soccer star-in-waiting and hoping the Tylenol with Codeine kicks in soon--trying to run the battery in the laptop to sleep to calibrate it after getting the replacement that isn't designed to explode, something I liked to call the al-Lithium al-Ion Special, etc., etc., etc.).

Anyway, here's a variation on an earlier theme:

Jeremy Glick Senior High School
Thomas Burnett Elementary

Caught on, yet?

How about the Mark Bingham Trauma Center

Got it now? No? OK, last hint...

The Todd Beamer Federal Building.

Of course, none of that'll ever happen if the Deaniacs control the conversation. Thank God for blogs...shouting at the gathering Darkness and remembering what Churchill said:

"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. 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. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world..."

Sorry, y'all but I got no more patience with any of 'em.

H/T to: Mark Steyn -Instapilot

Share This Article:

Categories:

5 Comments

By fdcol63 on September 5, 2006 8:48 AM
In a sane world, one would think that American and Western liberals would be the first to stand up to the threat that militant Islamism poses to the "civilized" world. After all, the kind of society that these terrorists want to create is one in which: 1) There is no God but Allah. 2) There is no separation between Church and State. Thus, there is no tolerance for freedom of or from religion, "secular humanism", "atheism", or any of those "progressive" New Age-type faiths. 3) There is no freedom of the press, or freedom of expression as currently enjoyed by Hollywood. 4) There is no tolerance for women's rights. 5) There is no tolerance for homosexuals. 6) Capital punishment is unreservedly meted out to adulterers and juveniles, including young gay teens and girls whose only crimes were to defend themselves against sexual assault and rape. However, the areas in which Western liberals and radical Islamists agree is very revealing: 1) Disdain and hatred for America and the West. 2) Disdain and rejection of Christianity. 3) Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. 4) Rejection of free-market capitalism in favor of a more centralized, state-run, redistributionist economy. The emphasis that the political Left currently places on their shared ideologies with radical Islamists, at the expense of those that are usually associated with freer, more democratic and liberal societies, really makes you wonder which are truly more important to them. And just WHOSE side they're really on in this current conflict.
 
By John of Argghhh! on September 5, 2006 9:04 AM
On their darker fringe, in their darker moments, Frank - they *want* them to win, because they think they can build their dream society upon the ruins. Well, that's not really correct. They don't believe that they can win, in an existential sense - but they do believe that they can set up the conditions for the destruction of conservative thought, thus paving the way for the far-left to build upon the ruins.
 
By fdcol63 on September 5, 2006 9:38 AM
John, That's pretty much how I read the situation. The Left, in their rather naive belief in their own superiority, have entered into a pragmatic, realpolitik alliance with the Islamists to destroy the "traditional" America and West they so despise, betting that they will be able to appeaser or deter the Islamist beast they've been enabling before the beast turns on them. For this reason, I do indeed question their loyalty and "patriotism". If the consequences for the rest of us weren't so ..... negative ....., it would be fun to watch the Left "dissent" under the oppressive jack boots of an Islamist caliphate.
 
By Oldloadr on September 5, 2006 10:22 AM
Finally, the whole unvarnished truth! Now, if only those who have never been to the land of Islam wil listen... (Inshallah)
 
By Shadow on September 6, 2006 8:31 PM
What is this quote from? It's great.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.