John Daniel Davidson is wrong to use Spain's 15th century expulsion of Jews as an analogy

Well, it looks like Federalist editor Davidson's crossed the line big time, and demonstrated why his news site has to be taken with a serious grain of salt. Case in point: he's taking issue with SCOTUS justice Neil Gorsuch in relation to topics like immigration, and along the way, he employs a horrific analogy with Jews as a subject:

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has done a series of interviews this week to promote his new children’s book about the Declaration of Independence and very clearly has a set of talking points, including a familiar liberal trope that’s no less false and incoherent for being familiar. America, says Gorsuch, is a “creedal nation,” essentially a set of ideas that anyone can subscribe to and become an American. What’s more, Gorsuch claims America was founded as a creedal nation — a creed that enshrines the three ideals of equality, inalienable rights, and the right of self-government.

“What unites us is not a religion, it’s not a race, it’s a belief in those three ideals,” Gorsuch told NRO in a recent podcast. To Nick Gillespie of Reason he said, “Our nation is not founded on a religion. It’s not based on a common culture even, or heritage. It’s based on those ideas. We’re a creedal nation.”

For conservative-minded Americans of a certain age, repeating this mantra that we’re a creedal nation, not a blood-and-soil nation like bad old Europe, has become something of a reflex — a defensive posture meant to deflect charges of racism and xenophobia from the left.

But it’s obviously false. One way you can tell it’s false is that no one who espouses this America-as-creed idea would ever follow through on its implications. If we were really a creedal nation, and in order to be fully American you had to believe and live by a certain civic creed derived from the Declaration and the Constitution, enshrining those three ideals Gorsuch mentions, then millions of our fellow citizens today would not be considered true Americans — to say nothing of the millions of recent immigrants who have never even heard of the ideals supposedly at the heart of our creed.

If we’re a creedal nation, such people cannot be our countrymen. If we were serious about our creed, we would denaturalize and deport them. We would expel heretics and unbelievers as readily as King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella expelled all unconverted Jews from their kingdoms in 1492. That’s what creedal nations do.

Wow. If he'd made a case why Moslems need to integrate and assimilate or leave, that would've been impressive. Instead, Dumberson - as perhaps his nickname should be - chose to fall back on classic antisemitic allegories, and fail to make any distinctions between good and bad religions, if anything. If he doesn't think the USA should be founded solely on Judaism, that's one thing. But to say it was literally justified for Spain's monarchy to expel the community that founded the religion in remote times goes way too far, and I couldn't find anything about Islam in the "op-ed" Dumberson wrote. Suggesting that perhaps he really is that kind of a coward that he can't bring himself to research and point out anything disturbing about the koran's contents, and then, he even has the gall to say:

It’s telling that those most likely to invoke this notion of a creedal nation are the least likely to support something like mass deportation and denaturalization. They will declare that we’re a creedal nation but recoil if you suggest we should act like one. That’s because they either don’t understand what they’re arguing or don’t really believe it, and instead believe America isn’t a nation at all but an economic opportunity zone where anyone from anywhere can, with enough determination and skill, strike it rich.

Alas, based on what he previously told, that's why Dumberson's argument here falls flat, because he doesn't seem to either, and let's not forget his unwillingness to support a ground raid in Iran. And if he won't take an objective view of Islam, then it's hard to buy he's a devout Christian any more than the very pope he chose to whitewash. Does Dumberson also believe Jews/Israelis only came to the USA to "strike it rich"? That sounds eerily reminiscent of socialist cliches.

Amazingly, unlike Dumberson, another Federalist writer, Chris Bray, did show the courage to bring up the issue of Islamofascism while discussing Britain's election where Nigel Farage made significant gains. But it doesn't excuse the harm Dumberson's causing with his loathsome lectures, and if their staff is smart, they'll do what they can to give him the pink slip. He's as awful as Tucker Carlson, and clearly comes from almost the same school of thought.

The new right-wing anti-Trump crowd kowtows to Islam

Andrea Widburg discussed how bad right-wingers like Tucker Carlson, and also Pope Leo, have sold out to Islam along their path to undermining Donald Trump's policies:

Today’s news brought stories of two thought leaders—the Pope and Tucker Carlson—showing reverence for Islam. This differs from the left’s long-standing political allegiance with Islamic causes, something reflecting that the left and Islam share a common goal, which is the West’s destruction. Instead, this is a reverence for the Islamic faith. That’s new and, I must say, as someone who likes the Judeo-Christian worldview, disturbing.

The way I see it, the Koran is a pastiche of random lessons from the Bible, with which Mohammed was clearly familiar, plus a lot of rules that worked well for Mohammed’s personal advancement. Thus, Mohammed echoed such principles as a unitary god and the rejection of idolatry, charity to the poor, honesty in trade, respect for parents, mercy and forgiveness, and keeping one’s word.

The problem is that he added other rules that were carve-outs for Muslims. Thus, Mohammed himself is idolized to the point at which he is indistinguishable from God, sharia laws are utterly merciless, and Muslims have no obligation to extend to non-Muslims mercy, honesty in trade, or keeping one’s word.

In addition, Islam has icky things layered over it. For example, because the 50-year-old Mohammed married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when he was 53 and she was nine, that’s a right given to all Muslim men. And because Mohammed veiled his wives because he was a prophet, Muslim women must wear tents.

Lastly, of course, there’s the whole war thing. Mohammed mandated conquest and war against infidels. Some people counter this by pointing to the violence in the Bible but the Bible is both a religious book and a history book. It recounts battles. But there is no “perfect man” telling Christians and Jews that they must convert the world through fire and sword, nor that women are the sexual spoils of such wars.

What’s disturbing is that two Western men who proclaim both their faith and hostility to Trump and the MAGA movement have lately become very supportive of Islam.

You could probably add a few more rotten apples to the list, those being the aforementioned RINO writers at the Federalist, who've also signaled support for Carlson and Leo. What the main 2 figures in focus are doing is merely an attempt to stealth indoctrinate the western populace under the guise of "conservatism", and we must hope most of the population understands what sellouts both these disgraces really are. They both keep silent on Christians persecuated by Islam, and it's chilling to wonder if both could be secret converts to Islam, much like some British in past decades wondered if King Charles was secretly a convert. Why, what if French communist Jean-Luc Melenchon is? For now, it's disgusting how Leo's following up Carlson as a religious figure who's a dhimmi sellout.

Pope Leo's tour of dhimmitude continues

The current Catholic pope, whom Donald Trump recently took issue with over his disturbing kowtowing to bad causes, is now disembarking on a journey to Algeria, where he'll be the first pope to visit the Muslim dominated country:

Leo XIV will become the first pope to visit Algeria on Monday, taking a message of dialogue with Islam on a trip that also represents a personal pilgrimage for the American pontiff.

Algeria is the first stop on an 11-day tour of four African nations, covering 18,000 kilometres and also taking in Cameroon, Angola and Equatorial Guinea from April 13 to 23.

No other pontiff has visited Algeria, a North African country where Islam is the state religion, and the 70-year-old’s arrival is being eagerly awaited by the Catholic minority.

The visit also holds a strong personal dimension for Pope Leo, as modern-day Algeria was home to Saint Augustine (354-430), a great Christian theologian whose spiritual legacy permeates his pontificate.

As the world watches anxiously with war raging in the Middle East, peaceful coexistence will be at the heart of the pope’s message in a country where 99 percent of its 47 million inhabitants are Muslim.

Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni said the pope’s aim was to “address the Islamic world, but also to confront a common challenge of coexistence”.

Algeria’s constitution guarantees freedom of worship, although the authorities must approve both the place of worship and the preacher.

Yet human rights groups say the repression of religious minorities has continued in Algeria in recent years.

Don't count on Leo bringing up the persecution of Christians in the region, or even in Syria, for that matter. Islam doesn't recognize co-existence. It only recognizes erasure and replacement of all other cultures, though what's really horrific is the violent content of the koran.

Predictably, Leo responded to Trump's criticisms about how you could possibly expect:

Pope Leo XIV responded Monday to President Donald Trump criticising him over the U.S.-Israel war in Iran, telling reporters the Vatican works for peace and reconciliation based on the teachings of the Gospel, adding he fears neither the Trump administration or vigorous debate.

“To put my message on the same plane as what the president has attempted to do here, I think is not understanding what the message of the Gospel is,” Leo told the Associated Press aboard the papal plane en route to Algeria where he is beginning an historic four-country Africa trip.

“And I’m sorry to hear that but I will continue on what I believe is the mission of the church in the world today.”

And that's "turning the other cheek" when it comes to a savage-run country building nuclear weapons, huh? Leo's doing nothing to turn the tide on the Religion of Peace, and John Daniel Davidson at the Federalist news site so far hasn't commented on where the pope's going, which only suggests said site's not really interested in getting rid of Islam as a "teaching tool".

Why all these Mamdanis keep getting spawned in the USA

Liel Liebovitz looks at how a serious defeat was suffered in east coast elections in the USA, what with Zohran Mamdani now NYC's first Muslim mayor, and how such awful politicians end up elected. And something to consider is that Republicans are blowing it badly, which only serves to draw attention away from these pressing topics:

On one side stand figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who promise a return to classical conservatism: a muscular foreign policy, aggressive free-market economics, and an unrelenting fight against the progressive chaos that took root in America under Barack Obama and Joe Biden. On the other side are candidates like Vice President J.D. Vance, pulling the party in a very different direction.

A troubling example of that direction came just last week. Vance spoke at a Turning Point USA event, the conservative movement founded by his late friend Charlie Kirk, who was murdered earlier this year by a left-wing gunman. A student in the audience asked Vance: "I'm a Christian," he said, "and I don't understand why we support Israel, a Jewish state that doesn't seem to share our values."

Vance could have easily explained the importance of the US-Israel strategic alliance. He could have emphasized the obvious point that, in a war between a Jewish democracy and an Islamist terrorist organization, there should be no question where America stands. Instead, Vance mumbled something about Trump and how Israel doesn't tell him what to do, then veered into theology: "The reality is that Jews don't believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah," said Vance, a Catholic convert baptized in 2019. "My approach has always been that if we have disagreements, we should discuss them publicly."

Imagine for a moment a serious presidential candidate declaring that Americans should publicly debate whether Catholic politicians can be trusted to represent voters rather than follow the pope's orders from Rome. Or whether Hindus, who don't believe in one God, should be allowed to run for office. Such questions sound absurd, and rightly so. The separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of the American constitution. So what made the vice president, one of the GOP's highest-ranking figures, think that the right response to a political question was to turn it into a religious one?

The answer, in short, is Tucker Carlson.

The popular television host was ousted from Fox News in 2023 under complex circumstances. He launched his own podcast and wasted no time steering it in a new ideological direction. In February 2024 he traveled to Moscow for a warm interview with Vladimir Putin, who claimed, among other things, that Poland was to blame for the Nazi invasion in World War II and that Volodymyr Zelensky was the villain in his war with Ukraine. Carlson then toured Moscow's subway and shops, telling his audience that such order and cleanliness couldn't be found in any American city.

Some raised eyebrows, lavish praise for Russia and propaganda that demeaned the US hardly sound conservative. But Carlson was just getting started. Months before the presidential election, he hosted online influencer Darryl Cooper, who told viewers that Hitler was the real victim of World War II and that Winston Churchill refused to compromise with the "peace-loving" German chancellor only because a small group of people—no need to specify who, but they control the banks and the media—pressured him.

Last month, Carlson invited an even viler guest: Nick Fuentes, a social-media personality who has repeatedly expressed admiration for Hitler and Stalin.

What drove the supposedly conservative pundit to such extremes? The reasons are many, but the overall direction is clear: Carlson, and now Vance after him, understand that to capture the imagination of young and apathetic voters, one must sound extreme and exciting.

What's told about Vance is certainly galling, because his complaint about Jews not believing in Jesus was entirely uncalled for. It would be wrong to complain that far eastern countries like India and Japan don't believe in one god, so why is Vance dampening the impact as he is? What matters is whether even non-monotheists can be vigilant and realists. Doesn't that matter to Vance any more than anybody else?

It's also troubling that the movement founded by Kirk, a pro-Israel guy who was tragically murdered, appears to be hosting somebody with "values" that are anathema to what Kirk stood for. Is Turning Point USA deteriorating? Who knows? But Vance is certainly not setting a good example here, and if he keeps this up, it will only make things worse, and take away attention from the next Mamdanis who're planning their run for office in the USA. Division on the right is one of the problems that led to where we are now.

It may be a burden on their beliefs, but what about their own Religion of Peace being a similar burden on any sane society?

In another example of why realists have to be wary of Islamic taqqiya (deception), here's news of a demonstration against LGBT ideology being forced upon students in Maryland, led by both Muslim and Christian parents in the city of Greenbelt:

More than 100 Muslim and Christian parents rallied on Wednesday arguing that a Maryland school district’s policy that prohibits them from opting their child out of LGBTQ lessons violates their religious beliefs and their ability to raise their kids, the Daily Caller News Foundation observed.

Members of the Muslim, Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Christian faith rallied ahead of oral arguments in the Mahmoud v. McKnight case, a lawsuit filed by a coalition of parents against the Montgomery County Board of Education after the school district decided parents could no longer opt their children out of lessons that discussed books about preferred pronouns, pride parades and gender transitioning, for the right to “let kids be kids,” the DCNF observed Wednesday. Carrying signs reading “let parents parent,” Muslim and Christian parents told the DCNF that the school board’s policy allows teachers to push a different worldview and ideology on their children.

“We believe that the state is trying to impose a particular moral system on our kids,” Kareem Monib, a Muslim parent, told the DCNF. “That’s what we see. We cannot allow that to happen, because that will be the end of our [Muslim] community. Those kids will grow up hating their parents. They’ll grow up believing that their religion is wrong. In fact, they’ll even believe that their God is not compassionate, because the way that the other side frames it is that we’re denying their humanity whereas we do not believe that a person’s sexual conduct has to do with their identity. That’s just not in our worldview.”

Wow. Just what's so "right" about a religion that condones sick jihadism and sexual violence? And also honor murders? Isn't that denying the humanity of Jews and women, along with Christian adherents? Again, nobody should be taken for a ride by the taqqiya that's sadly in motion here, and nobody should have to make a choice between LGBT ideology and Islam. Also notice again here how the Islamists are adapting patriotic-sounding language if that's what helps further their cause.

“We don’t celebrate actions that go against our faith. We have a certain set of actions, sexual regulations and we want to teach our kids that this is the correct way to approach sex and sexual conduct,” Monib told the DCNF. “When the state comes in at an early age and starts introducing ideas, like transgenderism, or that there are more than two sexes, or even use terms that our kids can’t understand, that does create a burden on our beliefs.”

Yet their own Religion of Peace isn't a burden by sharp contrast, huh? And is no more dangerous to women and children than the LGBT ideologues themselves, right? I'm sorry, but based on the specific movement protesting the school's indoctrination procedures, that's why this is a case where realists don't know whom to root for. On the other hand, the following guy is far preferable for supporting:

Dagmawi Lakew, an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian who immigrated from Ethiopia and is a parent within the school system, told the DCNF that he came to the United States to escape policies that the school district is imposing.

“Almost all these people [at the rally] left their own countries to come here because we don’t have freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom to assemble the way we want,” Lakew told the DCNF. “We left our countries and our family and came to the United States because those rights weren’t given to us. And now slowly, but surely, those rights are literally being stripped away from us.”

Tragically, that's the sad trajectory the USA looks headed on these days; a most perverse form of communism and totalitarianism. And even Islamic shariah looms on the horizon, and no matter how this case turns out, that too is a danger the USA faces as much as Europe. But, the guy shouldn't be associating with Islamists, since they brought such disasters to the African continent over time, and Islamic sharia awaits the USA as well, if we don't remain vigilant.

After nearly three hours of oral arguments in the Mahmoud v. McKnight case, U.S. District Judge Deborah Lynn Boardman, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, announced that she would decide whether she would grant the coalition of parents a preliminary injunction, blocking the school district’s current policy, by Aug. 28, the first day of school for students within Montgomery County Public Schools.

If she rules in favor of the parents based on the Muslim movements being among them, it'll be no surprise. If the Democrats want to retain the ummah's backing, they'll make sure to accommodate them. And then, it'll be claimed that the Muslims accomplished justice, all for the sake of weakening the opposition to the Religion of Peace. That, again, is the problem here.

More reasons westerners shouldn't be fooled by Muslim opposition to LGBTQ ideology

Christine Williams and Frank Gaffney spoke about how there's Christians who've partnered with Muslims to oppose LGBTQ indoctrination in USA public schools, and why it's ill-advised to believe the Religion of Peace actually respects values other than its own alleged ones:

As the alliance between opponents of the aggressive LGBTQ++ agenda and Muslims grows, Westerners have been quick to see that Muslim groups get the results that Christians have been unable to gain so effectively on their own. Christians are generally not confrontational and are easy targets, as we saw in Alberta, Canada, when Pastor Derek Reimer was thrown in jail for “hate” after protesting a drag show for kids at a local library. Greater awareness about the alliance with Muslim groups is prudent. While Christians and Muslims can agree about the abhorrent imposition of the trans agenda, as well as the open nudity and vulgarity of some members of the LGBTQ++ community, there are other points of divergence that should be considered.

To start with, in the coverage by mainstream media — which is notorious for its lack of knowledge about Islamic tenets and laws — some have been describing Muslims who oppose the LGBTQ++ agenda as “conservative Muslims.” The term “conservative Muslims” has nothing to do with Western notions of conservatism and/or partisanship; it has everything to do with a Muslims’ level of dedication to Islamic law (the Sharia), and is a term usually reserved for describing the likes of Iranian mullahs, the Taliban and Salafists in general. The misuse of the term “conservative Muslims” in the mainstream media creates the deceptive impression that these Muslims are supporters of Western conservatism or parties that support conservatism. Most of these activist Muslims against the LGBTQ++ agenda are more likely still Democrats or Liberals, given the long established Islamic/Left alliance. There are indeed some Muslims who are aligned with Western conservatism. [...]

But the focus of this Preamble and of the interview below is not the Muslims who stand in unity with non-Muslims for religious freedom and equal rights for all. The focus is on those Muslims who are aligned with Sharia tenets, held by those ranging in beliefs from that of the Iranian regime and the Taliban, to the Muslim Brotherhood in the West. Westerners need to be aware that the LGBTQ++ woke aggression will be used and is being used as a launching pad for the expansion of the scope of the Sharia.

Read the whole item. This is exactly what I'd thought about myself after seeing some of these cases which, to be sure, aren't limited to just the USA-Canada, where Islamists are getting the results Judeo-Christians aren't getting at ease themselves. Those who blindly align with Islam no matter the exact beliefs of specific movements of the Religion of Peace's adherents are running the gauntlet of granting legitimacy to Islam it doesn't deserve, and that's exactly why Judeo-Christian adherents who're realists would do better not to align with Islamists on the LGBTQ issue at all. Glad to see Williams and Gaffney both recognize what's troubling about the situation here.

Why is Ben Shapiro adding Islam to the mix here?

While discussing how LGBTQ ideology has replaced Judeo-Christian values as a "religion" in the USA, Ben Shapiro also brought something very problematic into the mix:

The Daily Wire co-founder added that people of faith, particularly Christians, Jews, and Muslims, all held some traditional values that starkly contrasted with the new values being pushed at schools and by corporations across the country.

“There is a common set of values shared by Jews and Christians and Muslims, actually,” Shapiro said. “And that set of values actually makes a difference in American public life. It’s why the notion that we should be posting ‘Pride’ progress flags in classrooms, but not the Ten Commandments is so absurd on its face.”

[...] “We have supplanted one religion for another religion, and the new religion is bad. It is a bad religion. It is a cultish religion that requires not just acceptance and tolerance, but destruction of the traditional forms of morality that used to undergird all of Western civilization,” Shapiro explained.

What he's telling here could easily describe the very religion that nearly resulted in the murder of Salman Rushdie. Yes, LGBTQ ideology is bad, but how isn't Islam just as bad an influence? Including Koranic verses calling for violence? Does Shapiro realize he's running the gauntlet of whitewashing the Religion of Peace? This is very irresponsible of him. How did we get to a point where all of a sudden, Islam's not considered a concern? Realists have known for a long time Islam was ostensibly against homosexual practice between adults, but knew that didn't make it acceptable, based on what the Koran contains about Jews and Christians, in example.

Shapiro might also want to consider the following report from Alberta, Canada, where it would appear LGBTQ ideologues have no opposition to Muslims protesting against their indoctrination:

Hundreds of parents, most of them Muslim, held a protest in front of city hall in Calgary, Alberta on Friday.

The protesters held signs reading “let kids be kids” and “school is not a place for political activism.”

According to The Counter Signal, chants of, “Leave our kids alone,” garnered responses from dozens of passing cars who honked in support.

According to the report on The Counter Signal, LGBT activists decided to refrain from creating a counter protest because, "It would be disrespectful to Muslims to show opposition to the protest."

“Any counter protest to the action at city hall will likely be used as ammunition for this hate group to paint queer folks as racist,” a source told The Counter Signal, who explained that the activists consulted with “queer Muslims.”

Whether or not they really consulted with homosexual Muslims, this is a strong clue that even in Canada, where horror stories have occurred as a result of all this awful garbage, LGBT movements have no serious interest in pushing their beliefs upon the Religion of Peace, and for all we know, it could've all been planned and choreographed for the sake of making Islam look good, right down how they carried picket signs like "let kids be kids". Interesting how the activists may have actually referred to Muslims as a "hate group", yet simultaneously didn't want to be called "racist" by the Islamists. Don't be shocked if the Canadian LGBT activists retract the "hate group" part soon, much like the Maryland Democrat who retracted her statement.

It's really too bad Shapiro's glossing over the badness of the Religion of Peace, and not recognizing how its "values" are incompatible with western values, or even those of far eastern countries like Japan and India, for example. Nobody should have to make a choice when it comes to LGBT ideology and Islam, yet Shapiro suggests he's actually willing to run the gauntlet of that, even if he ends up jeopardizing Jews' safety as a result.

Maryland Democrat proves how Islam is a protected class

In the past week or so, a Maryland Democrat with a record of making offensive remarks against Judeo-Christian adherents actually attacked Muslims for opposing LGBT indoctrination against their own children at public schools in the state, even though their opposition is unlikely to be altruistic:

A Maryland Democrat said Muslim families have sided with “white supremacists” for speaking out against LGBTQQIAAP2S+ materials being taught in the classroom.

The comment came from Democrat Kristin Mink, a member of the Montgomery County Council for District 5, during a school board meeting on Tuesday night.

“This issue has, unfortunately, does put… some Muslim families on the same side of an issue as White supremacists and outright bigots,” said Mink. “I would not put you in the same category as those folks, although, you know, it’s complicated because they’re falling on the same side of this particular issue.”

According to Fox News, she made the comment after “Muslim children from the district spoke out against their parents’ inability to opt them out of lessons they deemed violated their faith.” Mink further argued that Muslim parents have no right to opt their children out of textbooks highlighting LGBTQQIAAP2S+ issues.

“That is equity,” said Mink. “That’s not an infringement on, you know, particular religious freedoms, just as we cannot allow folks to opt out of teachings about evolution.”

Look how hilarious she's being when she speaks of "evolution", as though a new race/species were literally in the making. That aside, it's not often you see a far-leftist saying what she did, which alludes to what Islam is built upon.

But the other side is no better:

Ismail Royer, director of the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team for the Religious Freedom Institute, called the comments shocking.

“I was shocked. I was absolutely stunned. That’s the last thing that I thought she was going to say,” Royer told Fox News. “In fact, the Muslims don’t hate anyone.”

Anybody in the know of Islam's teachings of hatred against Jews, Blacks and women will find this head-shaking, of course. This is, simply put, a classic case where you don't know whom to root for. The RFI director, no doubt, must've been shocked that a Democrat would say such a thing, because Islam's usually considered a protected class by leftists, far more so than LGBTQ ideology.

But apparently, that could explain why this Mink has apologized, but so far, only to Muslims, for what she said:

On Sunday, Democrat Kristin Mink, a member of the Montgomery County Council for District 5 in Maryland, apologized for equating Muslims who opposed LGBTQ-based curriculum to white supremacists. [...]

“On Tuesday, June 6, I spoke at a Montgomery County Board of Education meeting about inclusive education and whether families should be permitted to opt their children out of LGBTQIA-Inclusive curriculum materials,” the letter began. “I regret that although my remarks were focused on promoting inclusion, they created an opportunity for misunderstanding and mischaracterization. I apologize for the hurt that caused in the Muslim community.”

As Matt Margolis makes clear:

This letter, frankly, does nothing for me. It doesn’t change the fact that leftists like Mink continually equate opponents of their ideology to “white supremacy” as a default. Mink, a Chinese-American, fancies herself a social justice warrior and is clearly only concerned about the fact she offended Muslims. Do you think she has realized that opposition to LGBTQ-based curriculum in schools transcends race? Do you think she doesn’t still feel that Christians who oppose LGBTQ-based curriculum in schools aren’t white supremacists? Trust me, she doesn’t. Mink has a history of anti-white racism and anti-Semitism.

The Democrat leadership probably insisted she retract her earlier statement for all the reasons already discussed. So, nothing about her conduct is altruistic, nor for that matter is the reaction of most Islamists themselves. And if the Muslims want, chances are they'll get all the exemptions Judeo-Christians won't in the leftist-run classrooms. That's protected class status for you.

With all that told, it's worth noting that support for transsexuality in the USA is on the decline:

Support for gender transitioning is on the decline in the US, according to a new poll released by Gallup Monday.

Gallup’s Values and Beliefs survey compared popular opinion in the US in May 2021 and May of this year, and found that support for transgenderism has slipped over the past two years.

Over two-thirds (69%) of Americans now say that athletes must compete as their birth gender, with just over a quarter (26%) saying that transgender athletes should be able to compete as the gender they currently identify with.

Two years ago, 34% of respondents said athletes should be able to compete as the gender they identify with, compared to 62% who said they should compete with members of their biological sex.

The percentage of Americans who believe changing one’s gender to be morally acceptable also declined over the past two years, falling from 46% in 2021 to 43% in 2023. The percentage of respondents who say it is not morally acceptable rose from 51% to 55%.

Republicans were least likely to say changing genders is morally acceptable, with 22% saying it was acceptable in 2021 versus 15% in 2023, compared to 76% saying it was unacceptable in 2021 versus 84% in 2023.

Independents were evenly divided on the question in 2021, 48% - 48%, and now are slightly less likely to believe it is acceptable (50% to 46%).

Only Democrats grew more likely to say it is acceptable over the past two years, with the percentage of respondents backing gender changes rising from 67% to 70%, while the percentage of those who said it is morally wrong fell from 31% to 29%.

More on this over here. It's about time this horror ceased. It's caused only so much damage, especially to women, which is also what Islam's built upon doing.

Recent statement by Ben Shapiro worth considering

Some time ago, political commentator Ben Shapiro was interviewed by Piers Morgan, and had the following to say:

Ben Shapiro has said that if a child of his comes out as gay he would oppose it on religious grounds.

Speaking to TalkTV's Piers Morgan, the political commentator was asked: "What would you do if one of your kids turned out to be gay?"

"I would oppose that," Mr Shapiro replied. "When it comes to religious marriage, no I'm not in favour of my religion sanctifying same-sex couples. Specifically because my religion propagates the idea of man-woman-child as the model for families.

"What I'm objecting to is the idea that marriage as a term is equally applicable to relationships that are designed to produce the future generation."

Mr Shapiro said that if marriage is defined as "two people that love each other" rather than "man-woman-child" then "obviously it encompasses two men or two women."

"But I don't think the government has a fundamental role in propagating relationships other than ones that have externalities that benefit society... having children raised largely with their biological parents."

He could go further by making clear he'd want his child to learn how to best relate to the opposite sex, and make clear that nobody should be attacked in any way for arguing in favor of psychological counseling to help in this goal. For now, he's right to stand up for the sake of Judaism itself and what it supports. And if governments could try to separate children from Christian parents, Judaists are obviously also in jeopardy. Here's more:

Mr Shapiro also insisted the suggestion transwomen are women was "completely unsustainable."

It comes after Nicola Sturgeon resigned as Scotland's First Minister after an outcry over the decision to place double rapist Isla Bryson in a women's prison and refused to say whether Isla is a man or a woman.

"It exposes the ideology for what it is," he said, "I can't think of anything worse in terms of misinformation than the idea that a biological man is in fact a female."

While Sturgeon deserved the condemnation she got, the sad part is how the SNP exploited the incident for replacing her with a Muslim, Humza Yousaf, as Scotland's First Minister. With the worst part being whether the whole transsexual flap was planned in order to enable this. Well, they certainly made up their mind who else they'd support, and it certainly wasn't a Christian, or even a Judaist. Apparently, the choice for such woke ideologues is either a LGBT advocate, or a Muslim, no matter how opposed they are to LGBT ideology, even though the Religion of Peace doesn't oppose it for altruistic reasons. And as many surely realize, Islamists are unlikely to face the same problems with LGBT indoctrination that Judeo-Christians are.

How Would the Governments of Our Planet Prepare Six Billion People for the End of the World?

Set for release this fall, “2012″ stands to become yet another in a long line of forgettable, CGI-intensive doomsday movies that might be worth renting at the video store in a couple of months, but is hardly worth the $50 price tag of a popcorn-and-drinks-included family outing at the local cinema. For purposes of this blog, however, it serves a useful purpose in that the trailer for the movie asks the question, “How would the governments of our planet prepare six billion people for the end of the world?”

Click here to find out how one man answers this question.

Pakistan: Islamic Child Militancy

It is the major problem:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan: Poverty, a culture of weapons and reliance on schools that teach little but religion have fostered a growing wave of child militants, particularly in Pakistan's troubled tribal areas, experts said Thursday.

"Islamic militancy, in and of itself, is the major problem," said Attiya Inayatullah, a board member of the Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child. "Any use or exploitation of a child is unacceptable. We need to have a strong movement that says 'no.'"

Pro-Taliban militants have asserted growing control over Pakistan's impoverished northwest in recent years, challenging the authority of the state. As well as trying to impose an extreme brand of Islam, they have also recruited youths as fighters, reportedly offering payments to their parents.

The issue recently came under scrutiny after a militant video emerged of a 16-year-old youth beheading a soldier in lawless South Waziristan and images of preteens brandishing weapons. But it is not confined to religious extremist groups and has been fermenting for decades in remote areas where tribes wage war over grudges new and old.

...

Part of the problem is the drastic shortage of quality education, several experts said. The gap is being filled by religious schools known as madrassas that often focus only on Islamic teachings with no modern subjects and TV-watching banned as a sin. Funded by charities or rich donors, some madrassas have been acccused of promoting extremism. Many students live there because their parents can't afford to raise them.

A video available in some markets shows young boys chanting Islamic slogans at a madrassa as they tote rifles that are nearly bigger than they are and engage in martials arts training.

Exit question: Is it islamophobic to assume terrorism has anything to do with islam? Or is islamphobia itself terrorism?

I'm thinkin'... Aren't the West funding some of those madrassas?

So many questions and so little time!

Bonus links:
Islamophobiaphobia
Most peaceful country gives cash to terrorists.

Crossposted

WELL-KNOWN PEACEFUL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GAZA CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS ABOUT TO BE DISRUPTED BY ANTI-CHRISTIAN VIOLENCE. AGAIN.

Elder caught this last week, and we got the JPost story dropped into our inbox, but we didn't think that it was getting any coverage outside of the Israeli press. Until we saw this stellar piece of conventional wisdom journalism from the Christian Post:

A recent attack on an 80-year-old Christian woman in Gaza City raised fear among Gaza’s Christian community not only of subsequent assaults, but also the fate of long-held peaceful relations with their Muslim neighbors. Claire Farah Tarazi was the latest victim of anti-Christian attacks in Gaza since Hamas took control of the area in June, reported The Jerusalem Post this past week. Tarazi’s house was invaded by a masked man who, during the course of the robbery, beat her hands with a club and also hit her head with a tool causing her to bleed. “As soon as I opened the door, he pushed me inside and shouted: ‘Where is the money, you infidel?’ I shouted back: I’m not an infidel - I’m a proud Palestinian Arab,” Tarazi recalled to the Post. The assailant locked her in her bedroom as he searched for money, but Tarazi was able to escape through another bedroom door and went to a neighbor for help. Tarazi’s relatives pointed out that she was attacked because of her faith.

Just how many times is the "peaceful" relationship between Gaza Muslims and Christians going to be endangered for the first time by an anti-Christian attack? Because the AP said last June that a Muslim attack on a Gaza Church "signaled the end of a relatively peaceful... relationship" between Gaza Christians and Muslims. And that was already pretty generous, since at that point the firebombing of Christian bookstores had been going on for months. It's like there's always this mythical state of Muslim-Christian harmony, which is perpetually being almost-disrupted by incessant, organized campaigns of anti-Christian violence.

Oh well. At least Reuters isn't blaming the Jews this time. Yet.

[Cross-posted to Mere Rhetoric]