Trump Critics Unleash Vulgar and Violent Rhetoric Over Immigration Debate

Screen Shot 2015-12-12 at 10.24.53 AMDonald Trump’s recent proposal to ban Muslims from entry in the country and his policies on illegal immigration has caused a heated debate. As we recently discussed, some have taken this debate to a personal and vulgar level, including the involvement in children in disgraceful videotapes. Now El Diablito, a food cart company in Portland, Oregon has followed suit with its own disgraceful display of children screaming to “kill” Trump and flashing vulgar signs. It is beyond me how parents would expose or encourage such things with children. However, they are not alone in such shocking conduct. Loring Wirbel, co-chairman of the Colorado Springs, Colo., chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has resigned after saying that Trump supporters should be shot.

The video shown of the event for El Diablito featured a Trump piñata with children encouraged to beat him. One such child screams “I want to kill him!” Another person asked for turn while saying “f*** Trump.” One man seemed to miss the irony in beating the piñata while denouncing him for “bringing hate and we don’t want you as a president.”

The owner of El Diablito insisted that the display “has nothing to do about politics, actually . . . It’s about having a good time.” It is a curious way of having fun in encouraging children beat a politician with whom they disagree.

As for Wirbel, he is accused of posting a message reading “We have to really reach out to those who might consider voting for Trump and say, ‘This is (Nazi propaganda minister Joseph) Goebbels. This is the final solution. If you are voting for him, I will have to shoot you before Election Day.'”

It is part of a rising incivility in this country as people respond to opposing ideas by attacking those who hold them. What is particularly disturbing is the involvement of children in sending such violent or disrespectful messages. We certainly see this same type of rising incivility on the Internet with people who immediately gravitate to personal attacks rather than reasoned debate. Trump holds views that obviously resonate with many in the country and repulse many others. However, there are good faith arguments on both sides of this debate. We will not be able to reach any resolution unless people of good faith denounce those (regardless of their views) who seek to personalize the debate with ad hominem or vulgar attacks. As a civil libertarian, Wirbel should have been particularly sensitive to the dangers to unleashing mob sentiments (even when claiming to fight mob or Nazi mentalities).  Wirbel later said that it was all just a joke but, if so, it seems lacking the humor factor . . . much like having children beat the image of a presidential candidate with bats.

43 thoughts on “Trump Critics Unleash Vulgar and Violent Rhetoric Over Immigration Debate”

  1. Oh damn, I’m late to the party.

    This calls for an Osho quote: “You can see, if you have observed a pacifist-protest, you can see how war-like they are — shouting, screaming, protesting…. You can see in their faces they are dangerous people. They may call themselves pacifists, but they don’t know what peace means. They are very argumentative, arrogant, ready to fight.

    It almost always happens that a peace-protest becomes a battle-field between the police and the pacifists. The pacifist is not really the man of peace. He is against war. He is so much against war that he will be ready to go to war if that is needed. The cause changes, the war continues.”

    1. If you have studied any philosophy this will sound familiar. There are two basic lines of thought. Subjective and Objective. The first starts with Plato the second with Aristotle. the firs deals with unproven thoughts, dreams, ideas, fantasies and relies on mysticism as a primary tool. The Lineage invariable leads to those who are led but are not leaders. except for a very small few and always one male figure at the top though they will claim otherwise. That figure is a combination warlord and witch doctor. Most of the claimants following the sole exemptions from parts of a mass or collective status our Platon Hegel, Kant lineage philosophers.and some are Napoleon Lenin, Hitler, FDR, etc. war lords. Included in this lineage or a great many education professionals. Familar comments and dogma are the real world is unknown to all but a few or prove I exist.. Belligerents they make bad combatants usually ‘fighting’ from a position of safety. Some make great fantastically great members of what’s called protective echelons or in German SchutzStaffels. That lineage has never led elsewhere for one reason. They have no use for factual evidence nor reason.

      Reason the ability to think is of course what separates man from beasts. It is mankinds sole weapon and sole means of survival.

      Aristotle line demands facts gained from first recognizing I exist. Then I am conscious of the world around me and it exists each part having it’s own nature. Even to the most minor building block of or to the extent of the universe. Facts are observations using the senses and reason then demanding tests and the tests are ongoing as as new facts are added. The primary name for that line is objectivists. Objectivists may use subjective projections in the formation of ideas or theorems but demand proof before acceptance. Sujbectivist demand only the remnants of a bad nights sleep. Objectives are what they are while subjectives more often than not are not what they project initially. Thus the peace protesters are not peaceful but project violence only from safety for it is true violence they fear the most. Is the problem with nuclear power safety? No it is the thought of some uses of nuclear power that can reach around the globe on the jet streams is unleashed to that extent.

      One might categorize the differences this way. Objectivist use the force (of reason) to boldly go where none of mankind have gone before. Subjectivists crouch timidly waiting for the work of exploration to be done then claim part ownership and complete control. Bravery versus Cowardice. Even to the point of objecting to the reality of the draft system up unitl the fear was momentarily removed then stopped their protests. Until it’s dusted off and with five minutes of congressional voting and one Presidential signature OR just a presidential edict is reactivated.

      Then the rush for the border will commence.

      Objectivists especially professional military or voluntary military have no use for them in any case. They are far more trouble than they are worth. Both sides speak against military conscription but only subjectivists both fear and accept it at the same time.

      I have yet to see a college professor drafted …. they are exempt by Plato’s second edict. We are exempt because we are special. You are not and will never understand that which is unknowable you must accept your fate without explanation and without exception .

      Violent Peace Protesters deep inside are protesting their own cowardice. Ergo Sum they are not worth fighting for or worrying about. Those who regard themselves of so little value are not worth the rest of us risking our lives in their defense. Prove they are real? No. We’ll let jihadi bombs and bullets do that.



  2. The Wolf Pack Profile

    The disturbing pattern of terrorism in America becoming a family affair.

    December 15, 2015

    Dawn Perlmutter

    It is difficult to comprehend how Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik who murdered fourteen people and wounded twenty-one in San Bernardino, California could be radicalized to commit mass murder and leave behind a six month old baby. The reason this is so difficult for Americans to grasp is the myth that there are universal values that every culture shares, particularly the love of life, pursuit of happiness, freedom and feelings such as maternal instincts. When people drastically deviate from these so called norms they are viewed as mentally ill or psychopathological. The reason mass murderers are designated as psychopaths is because the FBI’s analysis of violent crimes is based on behavioral science methodologies that primarily look at psychology and personality traits as opposed to a cultural methodology that interprets violence from the offenders point of view.

    The American obsession with looking to psychology to explain every aspect of life is in itself a cultural construct. Prior to the introduction of the field of psychology inexplicable events were interpreted in terms of religious and moral values, in concepts of good and evil. Behavioral psychologists attempt to categorize expressions of good and evil into normative universal characteristics of human behavior. Another goal of criminal psychology is to attempt to identify the characteristics that predispose offenders to violence such as childhood abuse, social, economic and other factors. The flaw in this methodology, particularly for counterterrorism, is that it is based on the myth of universality, that all people share the same basic desires. The opposite more effective method is based on a methodology that utilizes relativism, interpreting violent crime from cultural (or sub-cultural) beliefs including ethical, religious and moral values. In cultural anthropology this difference in analysis is referred to as ‘etic’ and ‘emic’. An etic analysis is an extrinsic approach that views a culture from the perspective of an outsider while an emic analysis is an intrinsic approach that views culture from the natives’ point of view.

    A cultural analysis of the motivations for the San Bernardino mass murder is based on the premise that the offenders were Islamic true believers. From this cultural perspective they would consider themselves to be good and righteous Muslims who were obligated to kill Satanic infidels (dis-believers). As Islamic true believers the violence would be justified as warriors, martyrs, waging holy war (jihad) against evil. As martyrs they believe they will go immediately to a higher level of paradise where they will be protected from the torments of the grave and significantly can intercede on behalf of the infant they left behind to join them in Paradise and be a family again for eternity not just their temporary time on earth. From this perspective Tashfeen Malik would be considered a good mother, one that sacrificed her life for her child. Farook would be considered a good father and son who gave up his life to intercede for his mother, daughter and other family members in Paradise. These beliefs do not meet any of the criteria for psychopathy, in fact their killings were rational choices based on their religious beliefs. The fact that most Americans find it incomprehensible demonstrates Western behavioral bias and the inability to name the enemy and comprehend the Islamic ideology that motivates the violence.

    The lone wolf profile works well with active shooters who hold personal grievances, are reclusive and choose to opt out of society. Lone wolves are often true misfits not true believers. Examples of lone wolf attacks include the Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Virginia Tech school shootings. By definition lone wolves act on their own without any outside command or direction even if it is to advance a political or Islamic extremist goal. However, a new breed of Islamic terrorists are emerging that are better characterized as ‘Wolf Packs’ family groups who have a shared worldview, blood relations, common ancestry, unwavering loyalty, solidarity, conformity, hold an “‘us versus them”’ philosophy and most significantly identify the Islamic Caliphate as their extended family community. Those that are fighting the global jihad are deemed to be the true Muslim faithful, by virtue of which they are to be protected and secured; those outside are infidel enemies who should be subjugated or massacred.

    Lone wolves often have been shunned from society or withdrawn into their own world, while wolf packs have support and gain their strength from family members and feeling part of a community of true believers. Most significantly lone wolves often kill out of a sense of alienation while wolf packs kill out of a sense of belonging and family honor. The concept of intercession in Islamic martyrdom which allows martyrs to intercede in Paradise for 70 relatives represents the ultimate family loyalty and a tremendous incentive for wolf pack attacks. Examples of wolf pack attacks include the Boston marathon bombings by the Tsarnaev brothers, the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris by the Kouachi brothers and the San Bernardino shooting by Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik. In both the Boston and California attacks the mothers appeared to play significant roles in radicalization and support. Wolf packs by definition do not fit the typical loner, disconnected, mental illness profile.

    In addition to the wolf pack phenomenon there has been a significant increase in the amount of lone wolf attacks occurring in Western countries. The Islamic State is waging a brilliant social media campaign that radicalizes true misfits and turns them into true believers. Their sophisticated use of social media which includes videos of sadistic violence appeals to the humiliated disaffected loner who fantasizes about making others suffer their pain. The term radicalized signifies a form of indoctrination. Current attempts to combat recruitment are based on the concept that offenders fall into certain age groups, tend to be male, uneducated and other characteristics that make some people more susceptible to indoctrination than others. However males and females of any age, ethnicity or country of origin can be recruited. Previous jihadist recruits have included Colleen LaRose an American middle aged divorcee from Pennsylvania dubbed Jihad Jane and Jamie Paulin Ramirez a 35 year old Colorado mother dubbed Jihad Jamie. It should not be shocking that Tashfeen Malik, the 29 year old Pakistani National, mother of an infant, who entered the United States on a K-1 fiancée visa, was pretending to live the American dream while plotting terrorist attacks. By massacring 14 people she achieved a level of honor that women in her culture are ever prohibited from attaining.

    The lone wolf offender has emerged from the basement with a sense of purpose and belonging camouflaging their true beliefs so they do not provoke suspicion. Essentially the Islamic State recruits the misfits, the true believers and every one in between advising them through social media how to blend into society and hide in plain sight until they go operational. Even if the Islamic State has not made direct contact with the misfit, by pledging allegiance they have a sense of belonging and justification turning their personal grievances and desire for vengeance into righteous slaughter.

    The Islamic State understands that to incite people to mass murder they have to remind them of their humiliation, disrespect and shame. That is one of their propaganda tactics. The misfit already longing for vengeance instinctively understands that violence will feel good. The Islamic State provides the moral justification that allows the loner to act upon his desires. ISIS makes clear that killing in the name of Islam is not only justified but obligatory. The misfit becomes a virtuous mass murderer whose humiliation is replaced with honor and respect by killing in the name of Allah. Jihadist mass murder functions to restore honor, serve vengeance, attain purity, save face and achieve everlasting life in paradise. And now they are hunting in packs.

  3. From Black September to Bloody December
    Islamic terrorist savagery, then and now.
    December 15, 2015
    Lloyd Billingsley

    On December 2, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, California. That horrific terrorist attack, the worst since 9/11, overshadowed another story that emerged the same day and on the same theme: the true nature of Islamic terrorism.

    On September 5, 1972, during the Olympic Games in Munich, Palestinian terrorists took 11 Israeli athletes hostage. They shot weightlifter Yossef Romano when he fought back, and as the December 2, 2015 New York Times noted, “he was then left to die in front of the other hostages and castrated. Other hostages were beaten and sustained serious injuries, including broken bones.”

    The Black September terrorists, a branch of the PLO, killed Romano and another hostage at the Olympic village and the others during a failed rescue attempt at an airport. The attack dominated the news but not all the details emerged. The German authorities knew about the mutilation of Yossef Romano and the savage beatings of others but kept this information under wraps.

    Twenty years later in 1992, as the New York Times story charted, Israeli widows Ilana Romano and Ankie Spitzer, whose husband Andre was a fencing coach, met with their lawyer, Pinchas Zeltzer. On a trip to Munich Zeltzer had gone through hundreds of pages of reports the German authorities had declined to reveal. The attorney gained possession of some photographs which the women, against his advice, insisted on viewing. The lawyer even wanted a doctor present when they did view the pictures.

    “What they did is that they cut off his genitals through his underwear and abused him,” Ilano Romano told the Times. “Can you imagine the nine others sitting around tied up? They watched this.” For Ankie Spitzer, the mutilation resolved a key issue.

    “The terrorists always claimed that they didn’t come to murder anyone – they only wanted to free their friends from prison in Israel,” Ankie Spitzer told the Times.

    “They said it was only because of the botched-up rescue operation at the airport that they killed the rest of the hostages, but it’s not true. They came to hurt people. They came to kill.”

    In the aftermath, as the Times story noted, security breaches became the major focus, not what had happened to the victims. Ankie Spitzer repeatedly pressed for details but was told there was nothing. The widows only received confirmation 20 years later in 1992, and then, for the most part, kept the grisly details to themselves. A forthcoming documentary, Munich 1972 & Beyond, will chronicle the story but some realities are already evident.

    The politically correct shy away from the use of terms such as “savagery” in the description of terrorism, particularly as practiced by Islamic terrorists. The beating of hostages and castration of Yossef Romano confirm that this language is appropriate. (The New York Times has chosen not to publish the photographs “because of their graphic nature.”) This type of sadism is motivated by hatred, in this case hatred of Jews. So government officials should not accept terrorists’ definition of their cause at face value.

    On December 2, 2015 in San Bernardino, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik did not target a military base or police station. They selected the most vulnerable targets, Farook’s unarmed co-workers, women prominent among them. The targeting of innocents with deadly force is terrorism. That was evident from the start but the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, invoked “workplace violence” in the early going, just as he did with the Fort Hood massacre, and pressured the FBI to downplay the terrorist aspect of the San Bernardino mass murder.

    When the horrible reality of the killings could not be concealed, the administration turned to fear mongering about Islamophobia. For apologists such as Tina Aoun, director of the Middle Eastern Student Center at UC Riverside, the problem was the FBI.

    “Many of my Muslim friends, among others, have doubts about the FBI’s narrative of what happened,” Aoun told the Los Angeles Times. “That’s because the story has so many holes in it. It doesn’t make any sense. Why did the FBI and police release the crime scene in the house in Redlands only one day after the shooting? Why would terrorists have a baby? Why would they target a facility for children with disabilities?”

    The Los Angeles Times reporter did not seek answers to those questions, but the last one is the easiest. Farook and Malik targeted the facility for the same reason Black September targeted unarmed Olympic athletes in 1972. “They came to hurt people,” as Ankie Spitzer told the New York Times. “They came to kill.”

  4. The San Bernardino Terrorists Weren’t Radicals — They Were Mainstream
    A huge tiny minority of extremists.
    December 15, 2015
    Daniel Greenfield

    After Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook killed 14 Americans in their corner of the Jihad over in San Bernardino, the media began its long laborious search for their moment of “radicalization”.

    The assumption that the intersection of terrorism and Islam can only be an aberration lead to the conviction that there was some moment in time at which Malik and Farook became “radical extremists”. Initial reports pegged that moment of “radicalization” as having happened at some point during the twenty minutes after Farook left the party. When the amount of firepower and preparation made the idea of a twenty minute radicalization massacre seem silly, the media tried to stretch it back for weeks.

    Now they’ve had to give in and pull back that dreadful moment of radicalization for years.

    But what if Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were never “radicalized”? What if neither of them “influenced” the other? What if both were exactly what they appear to be, devout Muslims who hated America and believed that it was their religious duty to kill Americans? What if this attitude did not show up last week or last year? What if it was the way that their culture and religion taught them to live?

    There are some easy ways to test that theory.

    Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were Pakistani Muslims. Farook was a second-generation Pakistani immigrant who was born here, but when it came time for him to marry, he picked a Pakistani Muslim girl who shared his commitment to Islam and contempt for America. And that’s not unusual.

    A fifth of Pakistanis want to leave their country, but they don’t like America. In a Gallup poll three years ago, 92% of Pakistanis disapproved of us. More significantly, 55% believed that more interaction between Muslim countries and the West posed a threat. In a Gallup poll, 62% of Pakistanis disliked us.

    While officially Pakistan is our ally, it’s a fairly thin line between ISIS and the ordinary Pakistani.

    83% of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers, 80% support cutting the hands off thieves and 78% want to kill anyone who leaves Islam. Looking at numbers like these, we have to ask when the 4 out of 5 Pakistanis, or 144 million people were radicalized? That’s certainly a huge tiny minority of extremists.

    A majority of Pakistanis grieved for Osama bin Laden and 44% believed that the dead terrorist leader was a martyr.

    Pakistan carefully hid Osama bin Laden. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has been accused of meeting with the Al Qaeda leader by former officers of its ISI intelligence agency. Documents show that his brother attempted to negotiate with Al Qaeda and “reestablish normal relations” with the terror group.

    The politics of Pakistan might seem far away to us, but Tashfeen Malik’s uncle is an important political figure with Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz party. The family is described as having connections to “militant Islam”, but then again so does the entire Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz party.

    Its antecedents were in the Muslim League which committed horrifying atrocities in India to carve out an Islamic State. The atrocities committed by the Muslim League’s Islamic butchers might have even turned the stomach of ISIS. Long before ISIS, the Muslim League created its “impossible dream” of a Muslim Pakistan through mass murder, mass rape and terror aimed at Hindus, Sikhs and other non-Muslims. Horrors such as the Noakhali genocide and Direct Action Day were worse than ISIS.

    They are also the reason why Pakistan exists. The current ruling party in Pakistan is the political stepchild of those abominations and atrocities. It’s also a quite popular political party.

    Was it really Tashfeen Malik who was “radicalized” or was it Pakistan?

    Around a quarter of Pakistanis support terrorist attacks on civilians in the United States. Under a third support attacks on American civilians working in Muslim countries. Around half supported attacks on American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    That’s a minority, but it still means that as many as 45 million Pakistanis support Muslim terrorist attacks in the United States. And Pakistani Muslims are one of the fastest growing groups in the United States.

    The problem is obvious and we can’t make it go away with gun control and wishful thinking.

    Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook weren’t radical, they were mainstream. Most Pakistanis don’t run around killing people. But their country was made possible by genocide and it exists because of its repression of non-Muslim minorities at home and its sponsorship of terror against Hindus in India.

    Over 40% of Pakistanis support Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Islamic terror group responsible for the Mumbai Massacre. It’s a Jihadist organization which declares that, “Jihad will continue until the Jews and Hindus throughout the globe meet their worst end”. Throughout the globe is a lot more expansive than India.

    One of the worst Muslim terror plots in North America was a plan to kill thousands of Hindus in Toronto by Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a Pakistani terror group of black converts to Islam. It’s also responsible for a number of other attacks in the United States.

    The ugly truth is that Malik and Farook weren’t radicals or extremists. Their attitudes and beliefs are mainstream in Pakistan. It’s only compared to the beliefs and attitudes of the average American that they appear deranged. But that’s a moral and cultural difference. It doesn’t mean that Farook and Malik were aberrant by Pakistani Muslim standards, only that they appear aberrant by our higher standards.

    And attacking our standards is a big part of what Islamic terrorism is about.

    We are not fighting radicals or extremists, but people who have a fundamentally different view of the world than we do. In their world, Muslims should rule over non-Muslims, leaving Islam should be met with murder and free speech should be illegal. These are values that the vast majority of Pakistani Muslims agree on.

    Not all of them have considered how these values must be imposed, but most Germans didn’t think too hard about how Hitler would keep his promises and most Russians didn’t ponder too closely just how Lenin intended to fulfill his plans. Historically people who want a totalitarian result end up accepting the totalitarian means of bringing it about. The “radicals” just think harder about the means. The “moderates” accept the ends and don’t want to think about the means of achieving those ends.

    But when the moderates are forced to choose whether they are willing to accept the means to preserve the ends, they shout “Heil Hitler”, they inform on their neighbors and dispatch them to gulags, they shout “Allahu Akbar” and celebrate the murder of Americans by the “radical extremists”.

    Malik and Farook wanted an Islamic State where infidels would be kept down, Islam would be the law of the land and brutal Islamic punishments would be dispensed. That is what most Pakistani Muslims want.

    The San Bernardino terrorist attack wasn’t caused by some phantom virus of “internet radicalization”, but by the toxic attitudes and values that permeate Pakistani Muslim society and have made it such a warm and willing host for Islamic terrorist groups. It’s not the internet that is a threat. It’s immigration.

    High numbers of Pakistani Muslims support many of the same ideas and beliefs as ISIS. As the size of the Pakistani Muslim population in the United States grew, it was only a matter of time until a successful attack on this scale would happen. We may be able to stop the next attack, but only if we are willing to accept the hard truths about who are our enemies are and what they believe.

    They aren’t radicals. They aren’t extremists. They’re the enemy.

  5. One more thought about Trump. Let’s put aside the fact that illegal immigration hurts blacks more than whites for a second, due to the well known lower educational attainment of blacks for whatever reason be it poverty or whatever. Let’s put aside that fact that the neglected but loyal constitutents of the democrats the black americans are hurt most by illegal immigration that takes unskilled labor jobs. Let’s now assume that Trump does in fact reflect a silent majority of white americans who don’t like the way things are headed. SO WHAT. Whites have a right to organize according to their interests like any other group with freedom of association, right? Whites have a right to vote right? They just have been cowering under a blanket hoping their abusers will go away. Time to pull back the covers and rise and shine. Trump will be good for whites, you can be sure of that, and he will be good for other lawful citizens too.

  6. I don’t think Trump will be nominated. He may have to go back to buying and selling politicians if he does lose.
    He pledged to support the Republican nominee; I think we’ll have an opportunity to see what his word is worth if/when he’s not nominated. A third party run by Trump is a real possibility.

  7. I’m sorry, he played to the lowest common denominator and now he is reaping what he sowed. I’d don’t feel sorry for him.

    Yes these people should behave like they are civilized, but apparently, Trump doesn’t understand civility some gets what he gives.

    1. Cheryl – Obama was too PC to vet the social media of two terrorists and now a bunch of people are dead and more wounded. All Trump wants to do is stop immigration until we can figure out how to do it right. Obama clearly doesn’t know how.

  8. Nick – I agree with you about Trump.

    I always felt that any polling vote for Trump must reflect a vote against politicians and PC. People are just so tired of the status quo – the lying, double standard, and lawlessness. I don’t think Trump is the answer, but it’s been interesting to watch the phenomenon of his popularity in the polls. It’s certainly not anything I would have expected.

  9. “Now El Diablito, a food cart company in Portland, Oregon has followed suit with its own disgraceful display of children screaming to “kill” Trump and flashing vulgar signs.” Joking about threatening to shoot those who vote for Trump.

    Wait a minute. Wasn’t the media (who appears to be cribbing off of each other’s story lines) just in virtually unanimous agreement that the conservative pro-life “rhetoric” caused that crazy guy to shoot up a PP clinic? Wasn’t there just hours of air time devoted to how the right needs to tone down its rhetoric?

    I would not vote for Trump for president for myriad reasons, but having children go on video saying they want to kill him is beyond the pale. That video will last forever on the Internet. It will follow those kids forever. What poor parenting decisions are on display. Keep kids out of politics.

    Hate is not “OK” if it supports your own personal politics.

    If a GOP joked about shooting those who vote for Hillary, there would be riots and cities would burn.

    The double standard is atrocious.

  10. Paul Schulte: I don’t recall which Catechism, but it’s one blessed by the current Pope.

    Do you know any Catechism that differs w/Aquinas’ Just War theory, especially the first point, being the justification to war in the first place, and my theory that surrender is never prohibited?

    1. Joseph Jones – I am familiar with the Baltimore Catechisms. Never saw one for adults.

  11. bam bam: unfortunately for idiots and bigots like yourself, Oxford Dictionary states the word “Jew” did not exist in print prior to 1775AD. In the first C AD, Jesus and no one else was a “Jew” because the word did not exist till almost 1800 years later. I doubt fools like yourself bother agreeing w/Oxford, but maybe others who stop by their library and check might find it enlightening.

    You are as bigoted as much as you lack reading comprehension. When and where did I “demonize all Jews?” Where did I demonize Jews as do the Rabbis, who claim Hitler did _od’s work against the Judaics who embraced secularism and turned against the Rabbis?

    1. Joseph Jones – I would check your dictionary. Jew Origin

      Middle English: from Old French juiu, via Latin from Greek Ioudaios, via Aramaic from Hebrew yĕhūḏī, from yĕhūḏāh ‘Judah’ (see Judah).

      Shylock was a Jew and there is a famous play The Jew of Malta from the same period as Shakespeare.

  12. Our resident Nazi, Josseph, simultaneously praises and lauds Jesus, a Jew, and then goes on to demonize all Jews. A special place in Hell awaits.

  13. Paul Schulte: a zygote is a one celled American citizen, who meets every single scientific definition of a human being. The only difference is the woman carrying this unborn American citizen is the sole person able to supply shelter and food required for survival and growth to (hopefully) a very ripe old age. A one-celled zygote comprises the 46 chromosomes which define and separate a human from all other life form.

    I defend the unborn by claiming the truth that Americans willfully killed 60M fellow unborn Americans. Killing an abortion doctor is still cold blooded murder.

    I don’t know if I could personally live up to my own goal, but my faith prohibits me from believing in physical harm to anyone, even for self defense. (See my earlier post how the Judaic who killed Begin claimed Judaic self-defense.) There are maybe two or three at most vs. that hypocritical, lying “Bible believers” use to support their belief in self-defense. Each vs. is very weak, requiring complete ignoring of Jesus’ many direct claims that one must “die” unto Christ. (For every single “yes” of man, Christ says “no,” and vice verse.)

    For Catholics: I spent many hours directly researching Catholic “Catechism” Re. war and alleged killing for self defense. I have requested answer to the following question from renown Catholic apologists Dr. David Anders and Patrick Madrid. They can not answer because to do so would prohibit their war mongering.

    Here it is, as plain and simple as I can make it: per my understanding of the Catholic Catechism, a Catholic either agrees with it or is “anathema.” (BTW, I am a Catholic.) The Catholic Catechism defers to Thomas Aquinas’ “Just War” philosophy, as follows:
    1. War is allowed when there is no other option. Every single point Re. Catholic alleged “Just War” theory flows from this first, primary, and legendary point.

    It is well known that wars can and do end (see Japan WW2) w/a formal declaration of “surrender.” So here is the “problem” for which no Catholic apologist has an answer: “Exactly and specifically, where does the Catholic Catechism prohibit “surrender?” The answer is obviously that no such prohibition exists.

    This leads inexorably to the fact that if surrender is never formally prohibited (of course, how could it be?), then in every single case “surrender” is an option to avoid war. Thomas Aquinas’ own definition to allow war is moot and void because it requires only one option to war, and such option always exists and never does not exist. Hence, taken literally, the Catholic Catechism prohibits war in every single case. All you have to do to prevent war is “surrender” to your enemy. (See my earlier claim that Christ requires “yes” in every case where man demands “no,” and vice verse. Man would rather kill than surrender to his enemy, but his worst enemy is his own self-will. BTW, the only reason the Pope desired Aquinas’ Just War theory is because the Pope jumped in bed w/Constantine in the 4th C AD, the Church’s worst of all crimes, a crime they still deny.)

    I would not cry over spilled milk if a non-believer non-Catholic desired to war, and I benefited from same, because such persons usually prefer war to surrendering to their enemies. Jesus’ rules are not for those who hate him. My acceptable reasons for others to war (none exist for me) are supremely narrow. Also, I would of course prohibit by law meddling in other nation’s business as is commonly accepted today, such as Israel and all the rest of the ME and north Africa.

    1. Joseph Jones – just which Catholic Catechism did you study? Their are several.

Comments are closed.