"We believe that these mass killings and the threat of more mass killings have become a problem ..." * Brooks D. SimpsonYeah. And the Paris attacks were a "setback."
Problems and setbacks, setbacks and problems....
No, they were terrorism, Mr. Simpson. Deliberate, murderous terrorism.
From a recent post at XRoads:
Now, if there are folks out there who want to remind me that the recent mass murders at San Bernardino, California, are “Why I Do Not Want Islam In the United States” (right, Connie Chastain?) … meaning that she believes that all people of that faith are potential terrorists, then what are we to make of southern nationalists like herself … given that the threat of violence is the current trademark of the League of the South (an organization that has called Ms. Chastain a member more than once)?Not "mass murder, Simpson." Islamic terrorism.
Columbine was mass murder. The U of Texas clock tower shootings were mass murder. The Aurora theater shootings were mass murder.
San Bernardino was terrorism. The 9/11 attacks were terrorism. The Beltway Sniper shootings were terrorism.
"...she believes all people of that faith are potential terrorists..." is not true. Yet another Simpson lie, (which can't be chalked up to memory loss). Islam is a faith with which terrorism and violence are compatible, even authorized, but that doesn't mean all who believe it are willing to live it. Many just aren't willing to oppose it. Besides, all people of that faith don't have to be terrorists to make the faith very dangerous to Americans. Those who are represent too great a threat.
However, I have not identified the likelihood of terrorism in the U.S. from Islamic jihadists as the ONLY reason I do not want Islam in the United States.
Herman Cain, Ben Carson and others are right about this. Islam/Sharia are incompatible with the Constitution of the United States. Well, incompatible doesn't begin to describe it. They are in so deep and fundamental a conflict, they cannot co-exist.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Allowing Sharia any authority in the USA would violate the supremacy clause and undermine the entire Constitution.**
Muslims in America have called for the implementation of Sharia law in the US, and in June, 51% of the Muslims polled told Polling Co. they preferred having "the choice of being governed according to Shariah," or Islamic law. And 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 told Pew Research they're more loyal to Islam than America.***
Presumably Simpson doesn't mind the Constitution being violated and undermined this way, in the interest of letting Muslims in the U.S. practice their godforsaken religion.... But I do mind. I am completely opposed to it.
Appearing in this post at XRoads is a screenshot of a Facebook post by Michael Hill titled The End Game. In reference to that essay, the XRoads liar continues, "...what are we to make of southern nationalists like herself … given that the threat of violence is the current trademark of the League of the South..."
Well, first of all, that is not a given. That is a Simpson lie. Anyone who can read with objectivity can see that Hill is not "threatening violence" but is talking about responding to being threatened with violence...threatened, in fact, with more than just violence. Threatened with being dispossessed of land, prosperity and life itself. When faced with such a threat, he says, "You will fight... Or you and your progeny will perish from the earth."
That's a little different than "threatening violence." In fact, it is poles apart from "threatening violence." It is about self-defense and survival.
Maybe Simpson can't see the difference. Maybe he believes there is no such threat to fight back against. I would think a historian, though, would see that the attempts at violent conquest that provoke violent resistance, occur repeatedly throughout human history. Does he think something magical has happened to humankind to end this cycle? Or does he know about it, but think he wouldn't mind being dominated by the ideology (not religion) that produced ISIS?
Simpson finishes this slimy paragraph with, "... (an organization that has called Ms. Chastain a member more than once)?"
What is this? Early onset Alzheimers? He knows that I not only resigned from the League twice, he also knows I have publicly communicated what I disagree with the League about, in this very blog. So what is the point of mentioning this, if not to attempt to associate me with what he mischaracterizes as "threatening violence"?
Actually, Simpson may be developing Alzheimer's, (judging by the way he brings up irrelevancies from the past over and over and over) but that does not account for his dishonest and repugnant attempts to associate me with those aspects of the current League that I do not hold with. But that's what Simpson gets off on -- trying to slime people he doesn't like (mostly heritage folks) with lies, half-truths and innuendo. It's a long-standing undertaking with him.
I admit to having trouble relating to someone whose life is so devoid of joy and purpose that he has to resort to trashing others to give it meaning (also characteristic of De'Stroy, and, to a lesser extent, Odious Andy Hall and Kevin Levin)....
More from this demented XRoads post later....
* We who? You and your tapeworm?
** This is why the Confederates withdrew from the Constitution before creating new laws for their new government, and thus not violating it. They did it right.
*** Can you imagine the hue and cry should 51% of heritage folks say they'd prefer to have a choice to be governed by U.S. or Confederate law? And if 60% of us said we are more loyal to the Confederacy than the USA?