GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Barcelona car attacks

by

As you know, terrorists killed at least 14 people in Barcelona on Thursday with cars, and injured at least 100 more in multiple attacks.

A group called “Islamic State” claimed responsibility, making them explicitly political and Islamic attacks.

By any objective measure, this is a much worse tragedy and problem than what happened in Charlottesville last weekend, although our thoughts and prayers are with all victims of both.

The LA Times article above phrases it oddly. LAT’s title says the attack is “blamed on ‘jihadi terrorism'”. The internal scare-quotes are theirs. The body says:

Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said Barcelona was the victim of “jihadi terrorism”…

In other words, LA Times won’t call it jihadi terrorism; it will only report neutrally the fact that, oddly, for some strange reason that one might not be able to fathom, others choose to leap to that conclusion.

This fits in with the [Left] Media Complex Playbook that V mentioned a couple days ago.

  • If the car is driven by a mentally-ill white supremacist and kills 1 person, it’s proof that Republicans are Nazis, America is in the grip of an epidemic of racism, Trump is the KKKing of racists, and lefties are correct to physically bash their opponents.
  • But if the cars (multiple) are driven by consciously-religious Muslims and kill 14 people, it’s not proof of anything except that Muslims are victims of hate crimes by Republicans – and lefties are correct to physically bash their opponents.

Queer Refugees for Pride

by

This is a pro-gay Facebook channel, which a Breitbart article linked to in telling a story of Muslims abusing gays. From Breitbart’s article:

Residents of an asylum home in Germany beat a Serbian couple almost to death earlier this week, according to a gay rights activist…

Gay rights campaigner Javid Nabiyev…said that although many consider Serbia to be a safe country, the individuals who were beaten had to flee the Balkan nation because their own family members had threatened violence toward them.

He went on to say that they attempted to hide their sexuality from the other asylum seekers – a move which was recommended by social workers…

The couple had contacted Nabiyev many months before the attack to say they felt uncomfortable in the asylum home. Nabiyev attempted to have them transferred to a different home but was unable because authorities saw no health or safety danger…

The man who carried out the attack was not named, and Nabiyev said that, while he was arrested by police and questioned, he was released back to the same asylum home afterwards.

The attack is the latest in a number of attacks on homosexuals in asylum homes or by asylum seekers, many of whom are Muslim…

To recap:

  • A Serbian gay couple had to flee Serbia.
  • Germany housed them in an “asylum home”, meaning, with a whole bunch of Muslim refugees.
  • They felt under threat for their orientation. The enlightened, tolerant, progressive German social workers told them to not to flaunt it. They didn’t. They still felt under threat. The enlightened, tolerate, progressive German social workers apparently didn’t give a crap.
  • The threat turned out to be real: Muslims beat them to a bloody pulp.

I’ll say this much for the Germans: The above is only one side of the story. Still, it’s a plausible story and I thought it worth noticing.

RELATED (to Europe’s Muslim crisis): Italy wants to unleash 200,000 refugees on the rest of Europe. Because the rest of Europe just isn’t lifting a finger to help.

Senior Italian government figures are threatening to issue European Union visas to 200,000 migrants, granting them unrestricted access to the bloc’s borderless Schengen Zone…

“Letting migrants travel once they reach Italy would create a real problem for our EU neighbours. But I hope it would force France to confront the migrant problem head on,” the government minister said…

In 2015, at the height of the migrant crisis, the EU pledged to redistribute 160,000 African and Middle Eastern migrants based in Italy and Greece to other EU member-states signed up to the bloc’s common asylum policy – but as of June 9th, 2017, only 6,896 migrants have been relocated from Italy.

Let’s be honest about the real solution to these problems. Here it is.

  1. Vote Obama and Hillary out of office. They shattered Libya and Syria, stimulating the present crisis.
  2. Seize the ships of the NGOs who are still illegally transporting the refugees from North Africa into Italy.
  3. If a time machine can’t be built to go back and get Obama and Hillary to not viciously shatter entire nations for no good reason, then, do what we can to fix Libya and Syria now. Finally,
  4. Ship the refugees back to northern Africa and Syria.

The Left sides with Islamic supremacy, part 2

by

If you missed it: last weekend, beloved left-wing Sharia advocate Linda Sarsour called for “jihad” (her word) against President Trump.

The Left promptly fell over themselves, not to denounce her use of the term; but rather to denounce anyone so bigoted as to think that the word could have a violent connotation.

Sarsour provided the necessary fig leaf, by bracketing her call for jihad with blather about how Peaceful Mohammed was totes about Speaking Truth To Power. But imagine if, during the Obama administration, a far-right Christian activist – the type who advocates Christian Reconstruction, say, and who had excused an abortion clinic bombing – had called defiantly for “holy war” against President Obama. The Left would have called for that activist’s imprisonment.

We live in a world, remember, where the Left thinks that using a crosshairs metaphor in your election advertising is direct incitement to violence; as is an Internet joke (meme) in which a corporate logo is being pounded on.

But calling for “holy war”? (which is what “jihad” means) No problem…provided the call is left-wing and/or Islamist; that is, directed against America, its President and/or the Right. Once more, Islam and the Left are allies.

Real threats to journalists’ safety

by

#RetardedCNN thought they had scored bigly, because they tracked down a nobody who launched a silly Internet meme – a funny gif of Trump beating down CNN’s company logo. And because they were able to terrorize the nobody into begging CNN’s forgiveness.

Hey CNN, how about getting back to real life? Try this one on:

On the fifth anniversary of [a controversy], I appeared on stage with five other people. Of those five… [and for having spoken about the controversy,] one was shot at point-blank range. The other had his event shot-up and two people were killed. Another was forced out of public life entirely. And the fourth had her family’s restaurant fire-bombed. Those are real threats against media figures that go on… right now.

Can you guess

  1. The specific controversy?
  2. The larger theme – who did it? Who does those kinds of attack on public media figures, in real life?

The first answer might not be obvious, but the second should be super obvious. Hint: It wasn’t Trump supporters, or conservatives of any stripe. [Read more…]

The Face(book) of Evil

by

The Right-o-sphere is rife with personal stories of Facebook, Google/Youtube and Twitter either de-monetizing, restricting, throttling, censoring or banning conservative and libertarian voices.

Facebook seems happy to do it – while allowing Islamists the run of the place, to the point where PM Theresa May called for Internet censorship after the recent Islamist mass murders in Manchester.

Earlier this year, Mark Zuckerberg said:

[Terrorist attacks are] carried out with a goal to spread fear and distrust, and turn members of a community against each other. I believe the only sustainable way to fight back against those who seek to divide us is to create a world where understanding and empathy can spread faster than hate, and where every single person in every country feels connected and cared for and loved. That’s the world we can and must build together.

This is so misguided that, coming from a nominally-intelligent man, one must almost wonder if some evil force possesses him? Because it happens to be what the wolf would say to the hounds if it could; or what Satan might say when cornered.

Newsflash, Mr. Zuckerberg: terrorist attacks are carried out with a goal of killing infidels and establishing the supremacy of Islam. Period. You have to admit a problem’s true nature, before you can solve it.

I don’t want to “fight back against those who seek to divide us.” Because that makes zero sense. Anyone who ever does anything good or new, or who takes a stand (be it true or false) on anything, “seeks to divide us.” It happens. It makes much more sense to fight back against those who seek to subjugate and/or kill us.

The terrorist losers use your own platform, Mr. Zuckerberg, and it’s not clear if you make much effort to stop them. Much less, an effort greater than what you put into stopping U.S. conservatives, or other critics of Hillary or the Big Government that you love so much.

Recently, a Pakistani man was sentenced to death for alleged blasphemy – on his Facebook page. Facebook claims innocence; “we do not provide any government with direct access to people’s data. We will continue to protect our community from unnecessary or overreaching government intervention.”

But I don’t know if I can believe that. Because:

Is Facebook an accessory to Pakistan’s judicial murder of Taimoor Raza? We need to know. I couldn’t find any recent statement about it.

And of course, that Facebook would ever give a hoot about anti-Jewish or anti-Christian blasphemy is unimaginable. (As it should be; the point here is Facebook’s extreme double standard.)

Right now it appears that Facebook puts WAY more into stopping conservatives and libertarians – people who stand for life and liberty – than it puts into stopping various kinds of Islamic murderer. That’s evil.

Hat tip Steven Crowder. By the way, his Painting Muhammad video is must-see.

Antifa is pro-Islam, anti-Constitution, anti-gay

by

Now we know for sure.

Protesters campaigning against Sharia Law were met with a number of counter-demonstrations on Saturday…

Sharia is the law of Islam…The rules of sharia come from Quranic commandments and the hadiths…Sharia significantly restricts the freedom of women and allows for extreme punishments for violations such as adultery, blasphemy, and apostasy. [ed: and homosexuality] Sharia is the basis of laws in Islamic countries, both Sunni and Shia.

A press release from the ACT! for America website reads: “This is a march against Sharia law and for human rights…”

However, many marches were disrupted by counter-demonstrators, who accused participants of “Islamaphobia”…

The article makes clear that the counter-demonstrators were lefties in masks, many associated with Antifa. One threw urine on Lauren Southern (of The Rebel Media).

Let’s summarize.

  1. Sharia is a legal system. Like any legal system, it must be supreme within a given territory or it doesn’t work. In the U.S. context, Sharia’s advocates basically want it to replace U.S. law.
  2. If you march (demonstrate) in favor of U.S. law over Sharia, Antifa protestors are going to physically attack you and call you “Islamophobic”.

It follows that Antifa protestors favor Sharia and want it to replace U.S. law. Which of course is based on the Constitution; which Antifa therefore must also oppose.

If it isn’t so, it’s up to Antifa to clarify it – by denouncing Sharia. In the meantime: Gays, women, and patriotic Americans everywhere ought to find it alarming.

Anything to avoid saying ‘Muslim’

by

The first step to solving a problem for real, is: Naming it honestly.

As Mark Steyn points out (hat tip V), our leftie-globalist-academic Superiors want us to believe that “sowing division” is what’s wrong with the endless stream of mass murders by Muslim terrorists. Because the desirable opposite is “unity”, led by those same Superiors.

Thus, they subtly equate their critics with Muslim terrorists. If, say, you’re a free-market populist who rejects the elite consensus, you’re as bad as a Muslim mass murderer. Because you’re also “sowing division”.

It’s similar to how the Left represents “hate speech” (i.e., criticism or rejection of the Left) as a form of violence, unprotected by the First Amendment. Under such insane terms, the Left is allowed to attack you with physical violence because they are only protecting themselves from the “violence” that you were about to think, or say.

Re: the London attacks, British media says they were done by “men of Mediterranean coloring”. It has a courtroom precision to it, which is nice, but also don’t say Muslim.

London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, did at least call them “cowardly terrorists”. And Prime Minister Theresa May slammed the “evil ideology of Islamist extremism” – but then went back to calling for “unity”, plus Internet censorship. As opposed to, say, deporting the UK’s known Muslim radicals and improved vetting of Muslim immigrants, or better enforcement of the UK’s existing laws against inciting violence.

It’s beyond question that the murderers were doing it for Allah. One can only hope that the good people of the UK will wake up.

Trump on terrorist Losers

by

After expressing solidarity with the Manchester bombing victims, he said:

So many young, beautiful, innocent people, living and enjoying their lives, murdered by evil losers in life. I won’t call them monsters, because they would like that term. They would think that’s a great name. I will call them, from now on, losers, because that’s what they are, they’re losers. And we’ll have more of them. But they’re losers, just remember that.

This is what I’ve spent these last few days talking about in my trip overseas. Our society can have no tolerance for this continuation of bloodshed. We cannot stand a moment longer for the slaughter of innocent people. And, in today’s attack, it was mostly innocent children. The terrorists and extremists, and those who give them aid and comfort, must be driven out from our society forever. This wicked ideology must be obliterated, and I mean completely obliterated.

Emphasis in President Trump’s delivery. I find this interesting on several levels.

First, calling them “losers” is a Trumpism. He’s spent his life focused on the issue of winning vs. losing in business, and he speaks colloquially and from his heart. Translators (into other languages) may have to footnote the expression or come up with some local idiom that would strike us as odd (if we heard it translated back).

Second, it’s an Americanism. Trump is a throwback to a time when most Americans were focused on winning vs. losing. As General Patton said in a bygone era, “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time.” This was before the Left programmed us to look down on winners and give everyone a participation trophy.

Third, it’s true. These terrorists are losers. They can’t think of anything better to do with the wonderful gift of life, than to try to ruin it for others. In addition to being evil, vicious, nihilistic, malicious, etc., they’re indescribably stupid. As such, only the stupidest of women should want to have sexual intercourse with them. They lack evolutionary fitness.

Fourth, it’s something new. I mean, I’ve called these Islamist terrorists “losers” before – but to hear the President of the United States do it, seems new. (If President Obama did it, please let me know in the comments. A search for “obama calls terrorists losers” turns up only Trump doing it.) It expresses a (rightful) depth of contempt for the terrorists that Obama probably never had. I also doubt that Obama ever talked about “completely obliterating” them.

Fifth, it’s strangely persuasive. Killing terrorists in wars, policing and effective border control all do have a place in the War on Terror. But, to really end terrorism, we will need to thrust a moral and social frame upon the terrorists that makes them seem “obviously” contemptible, or even ridiculous. So that, even to an America-hating leftist or a Muslim who may feel oppressed, being a suicide bomber no longer carries any status or moral authority or cachet. “Ugh, what a bunch of losers” is such a frame – and has the virtue, again, of being true.

Sixth and not least: Trump is saying it in the Middle East, to the faces of Palestinians (and earlier, Saudis). Kudos, Mr. President!

Seventh, the Usual Suspects hate it – you know, Whoopi Goldberg, The View, the leftie newspapers saying it makes light of things and doesn’t show enough seriousness – so you know that Trump must be on the right track.

UPDATE: Scott Adams seems to agree.

What kinds of people join the Losers [terrorists]? Mostly young males. And you know what brand young males do not want on them? Right: Losers.

If you call them monsters, they like it. If you call them ISIS or ISIL they put it on a flag and wave it around. If you call them non-Muslim, it just rolls off their backs because they have Korans and stuff. Almost any other “brand” you can imagine is either inert or beneficial to Loser recruitment.

Loser is different. No one joins the Loser movement. Try at home, with your family or friends, to concoct a more effective brand poisoning than Loser. You probably can’t.

UPDATE: Just to give credit where it’s due: in 2015, there was a push from the Obama administration to refer to the ISIS as “Daesh”. That, too, was a brand-poisoning exercise. Maybe not a great one. In Arabic, the letters are an acronym of ISIS’ name and evoke the Arabic words for “one who crushes and tramples” others, and “one who sows discord”. Perhaps our words “sociopath” or “fascist” are dynamic equivalents? Daesh is derogatory enough to make ISIS want to cut your tongue out. So, it’s a good shot. But 1) it evokes nothing in English, 2) it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter: these jihadists are losers.

UPDATE: Sean L gets into the spirit of the thing:

Perhaps we need to start using phrases that carry the same level of contempt in the Arabic world as “loser” does over here. How about “pig penises”?

The Manchester suicide bomber

by

Per The Telegraph, The suicide bomber who killed 22 people and injured dozens more at the Manchester Arena has been named as 22-year-old Salman Abedi.

Born in Manchester in 1994, the second youngest of four children his parents were Libyan refugees who came to the UK to escape the Gaddafi regime.

His parents were both born in Libya but appear to have emigrated to London before moving to the Fallowfield area of south Manchester where they have lived for at least ten years.

He had become radicalised recently – it is not entirely clear when – and had worshipped at a local mosque that has, in the past, been accused of fund-raising for jihadists.

(They’re still changing the article, so you might not find the exact text above.)

I’m sorry to say that lots of us saw this coming. As of last night, the media weren’t releasing his name; the delay always means that the perpetrator is a left-winger or (more likely) a Muslim.

Also, for anyone who follows the situation of Europe drowning under its Muslim immigrants, a recurring theme is that the immigrants very often don’t work (the supposed reason for bringing them in), don’t integrate, and give birth to a second generation that is MORE radical and LESS integrated than the first.

Trump and Saudi Arabia

by

Probably more than any other country, Saudi Arabia has “hacked our democracy”. I keep meaning to write a post on their ownership share of U.S. media, and why they would be on board with a “Trump is a Russian agent!” narrative.

During the election, Trump rightly criticized Hillary for taking money from the world’s worst country for women and gays. And he had a nasty Twitter exchange with a Saudi prince.

What a difference a year makes. First, the new US-Saudi arms deal:

According to a statement just issued by the White House, Trump “has just completed largest single arms deal in US history, negotiating a package totaling more than $109.7 billion” which will boost Saudi Arabia’s defense capabilities, bolstering equipment and services in the face of extreme terrorist groups and Iran. The White House added that the deal will create defense jobs while also reaffirming America’s commitment to Saudi Arabia…

According to estimates cited by The Independent, including restocking and future commitments over the next ten years, the deal could balloon to $350 billion worth of arms…

I’m not at all sure this is good news.

  • How is it different from what any pet of the Deep State would have done? (Obama, Hillary, Jeb Bush, Lindsay McCain?) I don’t know.
  • Does it boost U.S. jobs as much as Trump says? I don’t know.
  • I know it will help Saudi Arabia to conquer its neighbor Yemen and gain control of its oil reserves. (Not necessarily good.)
  • Does it put U.S. defense technology in the hands of people who hate us? Probably.
  • Does it mean that Saudi-controlled elements of U.S. media will ease their war on Trump? I don’t know.

I do know that Trump’s speech in Riyadh was epic. As Bruce Bawer puts it:

It was gag-inducing to hear him praise the “magnificent kingdom” of Saudi Arabia, “the splendor of your country,” “the grandeur of this remarkable place,” and so on…But then something happened…

…he began mixing the ethereal praise with realistic businessman-type talk about the value of international partnership…[and] underscored the fact that in order for such a partnership to work, something would have to change. And it would have to change a lot. The Islamic world, he insisted, had to turn into a place where young Muslims could grow up “innocent of hatred.”

And then he spelled out the results of that hatred, presenting first a roll call of some of the “barbaric attacks” on America – 9/11, Boston, San Bernardino, Orlando – and then a list of other places (“Europe, Africa, South America, India, Russia, China, and Australia”) where that hatred has manifested itself.

However delicately he worked his way around to it, it was nothing less than an accusation.

No, he didn’t explicitly charge Muslim leaders with funding terrorism – but he told them, in no uncertain terms, that they needed to cut off funds to terrorists…And, yes, he spoke of “Islamic” (not “Islamist” or “radical Islamic”) terror. And he made it clear he wasn’t just talking about terrorism – he was talking about Islam itself. He condemned “the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.”

Kudos, Mr. President!

Full video here (scroll down). Short excerpts here and here. Full text here. Addressing Saudi princes, telling them to their faces, “Terrorists do not worship God, they worship death…Drive them out of this Earth!”