A Fool at Fox News Radio

How to be a fool in one easy step: Criticize candlelight vigils and benefit concerts for the victims of Islamic terrorism. That step was taken recently by Fox News Radio personality Todd Starnes, whose commentaries are routinely published by FoxNews.com.

Here is a screen grab showing what I am talking about:

In his 07/04/17 rant, Starnes writes, “You cannot win over the heart of the Muslim jihadists with candlelight vigils and benefit concerts.”

Seriously, what kind of fool belittles candlelight vigils and benefit concerts for the victims of Islamic terrorism?

Such events benefit those who grieve, those who need healing. In no way do such events hinder the ongoing fight against Islamic terrorism.

Granted, this isn’t the first time that Starnes said something foolish. In June 2015, Business Insider quoted Starnes as saying, “Warner Brothers announced they will remove the Confederate flag from atop one of the most famous cars in television history. Maybe they could just paint a rainbow flag on top and rename it ‘The General Sherman.’ He culturally cleansed the South too. Just ask the good people of Atlanta.”

Sure, putting and end to slavery may be cultural cleansing in Starnes’ mind . . . Oh, forget it.

Anyway, Starnes’ comment about candlelight vigils and benefit concerts reveals that he is no Paul Harvey. Unlike Starnes, Harvey had class.

By the way, ABC News reports the following:

“The One Love Manchester concert held Sunday night to benefit the victims of last month’s attack at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, is being hailed as a triumph. Between text message and online donations, the show — which featured performances by Grande, Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, The Black Eyed Peas, Coldplay and more — raised $3.49 million, the British Red Cross announced.”

Trump Vindicated and OPEN THREAD
The Alternative Facts of Kathy Griffin and Hillary Clinton
  • bo ure

    what kind of fool belittles candlelight vigils and benefit concerts for the victims of Islamic terrorism?

    I do. This kind of fool. Piles of flowers and stuffed animals all signaling and no action. And at this late point just so wearisome. And left there in the rain for city workers to clean up.

  • Sky__Captain

    Starnes is quite correct in his view.
    A challenge for David – name one terrorist attack stopped by a candlelight vigil or benefit concert. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
    Then we shall see who the classless fool is.

  • Brett Buck

    The world would be a damn sight better off if people were less concerned about ostentatious shows of mourning, and more concerned about kicking out, arresting, or shooting the people responsible.

    Holding a candlelight vigil may make the survivors feel better, but at best, it accomplishes nothing to prevent future deaths, and at worst, just shows the jihadists how weak we are, which emboldens them. To date, it sure looks like it’s a lot more like the latter.

  • jim_m

    NO one is belittling the idea of candlelight vigils. However, when such shows of sympathy take the place of actual action to prevent repeated tragedies then it is right to criticize people who substitute public displays of grief for concrete action.

    this falls into the same category as those who idiotically claim that all we need to do is love one another. Love will not stop terrorism. Candlelight vigils won’t bring back the dead nor will they bring justice for them.

    GO ahead and think that you do good by mourning. You only assuage your own feelings. You do nothing for the dead and wounded. You do nothing to stop more from joining the ranks of those murdered in the name of islam.

    If you want to honor the memory of those who have been lost, then do more than lighting a candle. That is the sentiment here, and only people who miss that are those who think that candles and love will change the world.

  • Hank_M

    “Seriously, what kind of fool belittles candlelight vigils and benefit concerts for the victims of Islamic terrorism?”

    Someone who understands what we’re up against and knows that virtue signalling is a hollow gesture.

    I’m also impressed that while writing about Starnes and islamic terrorism, you were able to bring up the Confederate Flag controversy. Interesting, that.

    • jim_m

      David is simply trying to express his belief that if you are against islamic terrorism you’re a racist.

  • pennywit

    A couple thoughts.

    We shall not be cowed. Terrorists struck the Ariana Grande concert to tell us in the Western world that we are not safe. They struck London bridge, and gathering spots nearby, to intimidate us in our public spaces. Attack an Ariana Grande concert? She invites her friends and holds a bigger concert. Fuck you, terrorists, we are not afraid. Attack London bars and cafes? The men and women of London settle up the bill, and they’ll come back the next night, mugs in hand. They’re Londoners, they love their warm beer, and they’re not going to be intimidated.

    We mourn our fallen and we support each other. On September 11, 2001, I lived and worked just about ten miles from where terrorists slammed a plane into the Pentagon. For the next several days, small groups of people gathered, holding candles. They mourned the fallen, celebrated the heroes of the day, and signaled that nobody in this city is alone. After a day where I had to ask after a family member who works in the Pentagon and was relieved to find him unharmed, after a day of pent-up worry and stress, those candlelight vigils reminded me that I’m not alone … that I’m party of a nation greater than myself.

    We give of ourselves to help others. An act of terrorism can be both horrific and inspiring. Horrific for the loss of life. But it’s also inspiring to see people give of themselves in the aftermath, in whatever capacity they can. In England, there are accounts of men who tried to stop the knife-wielding terrorists. Here in America, in the wake of terrorist attacks, firefighters and police will tirelessly work to rescue others. You see volunteers who bring water, set up kitchens. Hell, I even remember a massage therapist offering massages to first responders after 9/11. A benefit concert is the same. Raising a few million dollars in the wake of an accident doesn’t scare terrorists away. But it can strengthen the organizations, like the Red Cross, that organize the response. And raising money can also help pay for the damage to lives and families in the wake of a terrorist attack.

    It’s about community.

    I don’t give a rat’s ass what Todd Starnes has to say about candlelit vigils and benefit concerts. If he doesn’t like them, that’s fine. But vigils and concerts are not for the terrorists, and they’re not for Todd Starnes. They’re for the people whose lives terrorism has touched, in ways big and small. They’re to re-affirm the bonds that between us, that make us a community rather than a bunch of people who just happen to live in one place.

    And that makes us stronger.

    • jim_m

      Community is nice(and necessary), but it will not stop terrorism.

      • pennywit

        I disagree here, Jim. We call it “terrorism” rather than “murder” because the point isn’t just to kill people. The point is to spread, well, terror. It’s psychological warfare, really. When you reaffirm community, you do so in an effort to blunt the terrorists’ psychological impact.

        By analogy. When the Luftwaffe bombed London in World War II, anti-aircraft guns were the best way to physically hold off the German planes. But I would argue that it was just as important that the English royal family stayed in London and stood with their people in defiance of the German offensive.

        • jim_m

          You are missing the point.

          Community is important to hold together when under attack. However, physical resistance is necessary in order to get the attacks to stop. Simply beating off the attacks from Germany would not have ended them. Only going forth and destroying the Nazi government accomplished that.

          As for staying in London: Hitler stayed in Berlin. While this may have bolstered resistance to the allies, it did nothing to stop the overwhelming force that was against Nazi Germany. If you cannot (or in the current case, will not) muster sufficient force to eradicate the enemy you will eventually lose the war.

          The islamists will not give up. Their god commands them to kill us or die trying. They will gladly do both.

          • pennywit

            Hey, I’m all for sending the Marines, the Army, the SEALs, and a troupe of my ex-girlfriends to take out ISIS or al-Qaida where they are. I probably won’t be going with them; I simply don’t have talents or training in that direction. But I consider the community-affirming gestures just as important — and I think that casting aspersions at them is ignoble at best.

          • jim_m

            I would hesitate before saying that people are casting aspersions on these displays. What people are sick and tired of is that such displays seem to be the alpha and omega of what is being done about it. People want action. If this is all that is going to be done (and it appears that once more that will be the case here) then we may as well do nothing.

            Simple shows of sympathy and community building without a step of resolve to put an end to islamism do more to encourage the enemy and bolster their moral.

          • pennywit

            I would hesitate before saying that people are casting aspersions on these displays.

            I think that Starnes is being pretty contemptuous in his own remarks.

          • Retired military

            You are one of the few liberals who would support military action to take out terrorists.
            Just today I saw a quote from Hillary that says the key to solving terrorism is to understand their food.

        • labar

          The Royal Air Force probably had more of an impact against the German bombers than the anti-aircraft guns. And their impact was so decisive because of their radar umbrella that covered the entire country.

          That’s not a knock against the anti-aircraft gunners on the ground either. But it was the Royal Air Force that saved Britain from certain defeat.

      • Actually, community is key in that if the mohamedean community fears the consequences of terrorism more than they fear the terrorists, the terrorists will have no safe haven from which to operate.

    • Retired military
      • WHO’S THE BUSTER

        Yeah, invading Iraq was a capital idea.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Bugging out was even better.

        • Jwb10001

          Then you must be super pissed at Obama for expanding our operations into now 5 countries.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Iraq was the original sin.

          • Adam and Eve would beg to differ…

          • Jwb10001

            Oh of course, and that Arab Spring thing was probably GWB’s idea too right? How do you link Libya with that since that seems to have sprung directly from her majesty queen Hillary.

          • Retired military

            So instead of maintaining what was working and continuing to win Obama just decided to give up.

        • Brett Buck

          It was an outstanding idea, the problem was, we didn’t turn left and keep going to clean out Syria. Then, Obama and Hillary cut-and-run with perfectly predictable results. Still later Obama and Hillary decided to side with ISIS against the Russians, while setting up and expanding Afghanistan into a typical Democrat war – a meat grinder stalemate, where they never apply enough force to win, but never give up, so pointless deaths go up and up and up.

          Fortunately, going up against the Russians and siding with radical Islam was short-circuited by the election.

        • Retired military

          And Saddam is still a problem how?

  • pennywit

    By the way, when terrorists murder people a teen pop star’s concert, I think it’s completely appropriate for the teen pop star to stage a larger concert at the same place. It’s a nice little “fuck you” to the terrorists.

    • jim_m

      You know, I really don’t think they care. When you have so much contempt for someone that you want to murder them, what they do doesn’t mean a whole lot to you. Symbolic FU’s aren’t going to offend a person who is already so offended by the fact that you live and breathe that they want to cut your head off with a knife or set you on fire and watch you burn.

      These people think that we are subhuman and that torturing us and killing us pleases their god. Do you honestly think that staging a concert has any affect?

      It is this thinking that somehow that these symbolic protests mean something and that they somehow are advancing the cause of liberty that is the problem. While they may make some people feel smug they make no difference whatsoever.

      • pennywit

        You know, I really don’t think they care. When you have so much contempt for someone that you want to murder them, what they do doesn’t mean a whole lot to you. Symbolic FU’s aren’t going to offend a person who is already so offended by the fact that you live and breathe that they want to cut your head off with a knife or set you on fire and watch you burn.

        Again, disagree.

        If the city of Manchester had said, “Yeah, no more concerts here. We don’t want any more kids hurt by the terrorists,” that would have handed them a huge, huge victory.

        • jim_m

          The victory they crave is you dead. that would not have been a huge victory in their eyes, just a step forward in your subjugation.

          Making this simply about whether or not people can go to concerts glosses over the fact of what the islamists really want to accomplish.

          • pennywit

            Subjugation is exactly what the fundies want. To go on with your life — in defiance of their desires — is to resist that subjugation.

          • jim_m

            As I point out. Resistance means nothing if you are not capable and willing to end the existence of islamism. You can keep on going about your life as if nothing happened, but they will eventually find you as you whistle past the graveyard.

          • Retired military

            Liberals seem to be a bit more violent in trying to get their ideas across and tend to ignore blatant facts of life.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3d4403a4377831e64f3b4fe0ae42c9e3b1945258dd1cf5ef86aae3f1b71ce2d7.jpg

        • Scalia

          If the city of Manchester had said, “Yeah, no more concerts here. We don’t want any more kids hurt by the terrorists,” that would have handed them a huge, huge victory.

          If ISIS’ message is, “No more concerts,” then perhaps a follow-up concert is necessary. But ISIS’ objective isn’t so much a concert as it is to advance Islam. In that light, another concert is an empty gesture.

          • pennywit

            Actually — they very much are. Ever looked into the Offical ISIS Opinion (TM) on women singing in public? They don’t like it.

          • Scalia

            I’m certain that they don’t like a lot of things, but the concert itself isn’t their objective. Once they get their way, the concerts will go away. If they wanted to stop the concert, they could have killed Grande.

          • labar

            Then Grande and Perry should go perform for the oppressed women in the Islamic countries. You know, where the women are not allowed to go out of the house unless a male member of the family is with them.

            And the women can’t go out without covering themselves completely under a burka. Can’t get an education and if they happen to get gang raped while out, they will be buried in the ground up to their neck and then stoned to death for being raped and bringing dishonor upon the family.

        • labar

          It’s not about having no more concerts. It’s about not having anymore damn terrorists attacks.

          Three attacks within 3 months all carried out by people who specifically targeted civilians for slaughter and doing so in the name of their god is what needs to be stopped.

          And it’s not going to be stopped with hugs and kisses from some scantly dressed pop stars.

          • Retired military

            Where as in Texas about 2 years ago some “terrorists” tried to start something at an arts and crafts festival and got shot doing it.

    • Retired military
    • labar

      It’s easy to be brave when you have thousands of police protecting your gig. Even if the event gets attacked, it’ll never penetrate the layers and reach Grande and Perry.

      But if it did, I’m sure both of them would just hug the terrorist and the violence would stop immediately as Unicorns and rainbows burst from the sky.

  • Scalia

    Sure, putting and end to slavery may be cultural cleansing in Starnes’ mind . . . Oh, forget it.

    Yes, forget it, David, because that isn’t what Starnes was saying.

  • pennywit
    • Walter_Cronanty

      When “more than 130 British imams” start informing on their extremist parishioners and forcefully teach that terrorism [and rape and genital mutilation and hating the country you live in and its residents] is wrong, I’ll light a candle in their honor.

    • Brett Buck

      Swell. Of course, given that they are also sworn to lie or cheat to make sure their end goal is achieved, it means a lot less than it might otherwise.

      Walter is right, too, of course. If randomly killing people was unacceptable to “the Muslim community”, the problem could easily dealt with. As an example (admittedly not as extreme), what happens when there is an annoucement of a neo-Nazi “rally” or whatever in the USA? You end up with a few pathetic skinheads wearing armbands and giving each other “seek help” salutes in the middle of a field somewhere, and 5000 people protesting. And these are just a pathetic bunch of wanna-bes who are never going to actually do anything.

      Compare that to an incident like this. Where are all the “moderate Muslims” today? Seeking out the “lone wolves” (who, to date, could have given every indication that they were nutcases long ahead of their action) and working with the police to purge them from their otherwise peaceful and law-abiding community (British law, in this case)? Or, like in many cases from my youth in the south, finding the crazies either mysteriously dead or mysteriously having the crap beat out of them and deciding that maybe they need to find another way to act? Nope, they’re silently sitting at home, or begging the ever-willing press to bleat on about the terrible backlash they might get (although it hasn’t happened anywhere else, since we are more concerned about pointless mourning rituals than preventing the killing in the first place).

      One thing they aren’t doing – coming out, en masse, to *get rid of the killers in their midst”

      Tacit acceptable by their own community permits this to continue. If “religion of peace” types actually cared or were bothered by this sort of incident, they would do something about it at the root, where it could easily be prevented. That’s not happening – quite the opposite. What does that tell you?

      • pennywit

        Where are all the “moderate Muslims” today? Seeking out the “lone wolves” (who, to date, could have given every indication that they were nutcases long ahead of their action) and working with the police to purge them from their otherwise peaceful and law-abiding community (British law, in this case)?

        From Politico:

        Ron Haddad is Dearborn’s chief of police, and he says he gets one question a lot when he travels around the country. “Someone will come up to me and put their finger in my face, and they’re already angry,” he says. “They say, ‘Will the people in your community report acts of terror to you?’“

        What they mean is: Will Muslims turn in other Muslims?

        Haddad has a ready answer. “Not only would they, they do,” he says. “They’ve done it.”

        FoxNews.com:

        Reuters found numerous court records that showed Muslims reporting threats in recent years, some from within their own families.

        One example: Amani Ibrahim, who warned law enforcement about her own son, 17-year-old Ali Amin. He was sentenced last summer to more than a decade in prison for conspiring to support ISIS after investigators found that he helped a classmate travel to join the terror group.

        Speaking at a news conference, FBI director James Comey said Muslims “do not want people committing violence, either in their community or in the name of their faith, and so some of our most productive relationships are with people who see things and tell us things who happen to be Muslim.”

    • jim_m

      Wake me when it’s 100,000

      TWO thirds of British Muslims would not inform the police if they thought that somebody close to them had become involved with terrorist sympathisers, according to a poll.

      This alarming revelation suggests that more than 100,000 British Muslims could sympathise with suicide bombers and people who commit terrorist acts.

      Yes, it’s a year old, but do you really think attitudes have changed for the better? I have several terrorist incidents that suggest it has probably gotten worse. Not a soul said anything about these terrorists.

      THe point is that there may be 130 people wiling to say something, but they represent less than 0.2% of those willing to abet terrorism. The remainder apparently are simply apathetic..

    • Retired military
  • Walter_Cronanty

    I believe Starnes’ comment is evidencing the growing frustration, worldwide, with our rather banal reactions to those annihilating us.
    Pennywit earlier points out the good effects of candlelight vigils, benefit concerts, symbolic gestures, etc. But, he, and more importantly, Mr. Robertson, totally ignore the gist of Starnes comment: None of these acts will stop the terrorists’ attacks.

    • pennywit

      I take issue with Starnes’ contempt for displays of community. He seems to be ignorant of the positive effects such displays can have for their communities.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        His comment was not directed to the positive [or negative] effects of “such displays.” He merely pointed out that they were useless in stopping the attacks. He’s correct.

        • pennywit

          Thing is … he really doesn’t address it. And that makes me think he’s contemptuous or ignorant.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            He is stating this basic truth: “You cannot win over the heart of the Muslim jihadists with candlelight vigils and benefit concerts.”
            Maybe, for you, it would have been better written if he had started that thought this way: “While candlelight vigils and benefit concerts have their place in response to barbarians committing mass murder in the name of their cult of death religion, you cannot win over the heart…..” If that makes you feel better, so be it.

          • pennywit

            That’s not very well written.

            “Candlelight vigils and benefit concerts have salutary effects on the community. However, these community efforts must be coupled with effective military action and a commitment to stamp out terrorism.”

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Wow – that will certainly strike fear into the hearts of terrorists. Do you write for our ruling elites?

          • pennywit

            Terrorists are not the intended audience for this one, Walt. The intended audience is other Westerners. I doubt anybody is running and hiding because Todd Starnes wrote a mean op-ed.

          • Retired military

            Why not. They do it when Trump sends out a tweet.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            So why not write a soppy, politically correct op-ed, correct?

          • Retired military

            Have the UN send a strongly written letter.

          • Jwb10001

            I believe these killers look at our pathetic responses and our hand wringing over backlash and our “love is the answer” non sense and laugh their asses off. We must look like sheep for the slaughter to them. Praising the religion of peace while it kills our children. Pathic.

        • pennywit

          More broadly, I don’t think it’s possible to stop terrorist attacks. You can stop John Q. Terrorist or Jane Q. Terrorist, but there is always one more waiting in the wings. You can shut down ISIS, but al-Qaida is just around the corner. Shut down al-Qaida and another group steps up. Somehow eliminate all Islamic terrorists, and then somebody else will show up with some other cause, whether it’s the Animal Liberation Front trying to free lab animals, Dylan Roof trying to start a race war, or some guy shooting up a movie theater because the voices in his head said, “Kill.”

          To truly stop many such attacks before they happen, I think, would require a level of totalitarianism that would fundamentally change the character of the West.

          • Hank_M

            “More broadly, I don’t think it’s possible to stop terrorist attacks.”

            http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261954/how-american-soldiers-used-pigs-blood-and-corpses-daniel-greenfield

          • pennywit

            Congratulations. You stopped a few Muslim terrorists. What about the Dylan Roofs and Jared Loughners of the world?

          • Hank_M

            /sarc

            We’ve already solved the Dylan Roof issue by banning Confederate Flags. As for Loughner, Sarah Palin was taken to task for using a target on her political maps.

            /sarc off

            More seriously, you expressed doubt that terrorism can be stopped.
            My link showed what can be accomplished if we take the gloves off and start fighting back as viciously as those who are waging war on us daily.

          • jim_m

            I think you are delusional if you think there is a serious equivalency between islamic terrorism and Dylan Roof or Jared Loughner.

          • pennywit

            The point, Jimmy boy, is that there’s more than one kind of terrorist.

          • jim_m

            NO there really isn’t

            Loughner has been determined to be insane. Are you claiming that all terrorism is mental illness? That’s going to be a tough sell. You might as well argue that all of communism is the product of mental illness.

            Roof on the other hand, may have wanted to incite a race war and with such a motive you might say that he was using violence to force political change, But that is a gross exaggeration. He is not connected with any movement advocating such political change (unless you consider the democrats, but that is a different discussion).

            Nor did Roof intend to promote political change through intimidation,
            but he wanted a race war. That is delusional thinking. Islamic
            terrorists are not delusional. They are religious zealots who act in very organized ways with the explicit purpose of forcing political change through violence and intimidation.

            We may decide to classify such Isolated incidents as terrorism but they remain decidedly different than islamic terror, which is organized, has a clearly formed ideology, is not directed narrowly (as was Dylan Roof’s act) but is targeted against society at large. They also have a very clear definition of the political ends they are trying to achieve.

            You clearly desire to link violence against democrats and minorities as terrorism, but a far better example would be antifa’s actions in the US. Of course you won’t want to talk about these acts of terrorism because they are done explicitly to advance the democrat agenda and they are done increasingly with the protection and coordination of the democratic party.

          • pennywit

            far better example would be antifa’s actions in the US.

            A growing problem, actually. No deaths yet, but that’s probably around the corner.

          • jim_m

            SO while you put forth Loughner and Roof as exemplars, the real non islamic terrorist threat is from Antifa, a well organized movement that has a clearly defined ideology and aims and has a long history (if you look at its predecessor organizations) of violent agitation for their political goals (communist hegemony)

          • The point, pennyhalfwit, is that 99% of lethal terrorism worldwide is perpetrated by the sons of the false prophet (pigshit be upon his name).

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Your constant mention of Dylan Roof and/or Jared Loughner is laughable. There are over 1.5 b Muslims. Depending on the county, anywhere from 6% to 40% somewhat or strongly agree with terrorist tactics. They also have a worldwide structure.

          • pennywit

            My overall point is that you really can’t prevent “terrorist attacks.”

          • Walter_Cronanty

            We can’t stop murder, so let’s stop trying.

          • pennywit

            No, I just think we need to be realistic.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I’m being as realistic as you are when you compare Roof/Loughner with Islamic terrorists.

          • Retired military

            Nor can you prevent all suicides yet the left insists that guns should be banned so that they cant be used in suicides.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            When is the last time Jared Loughner engaged in a terrorist attack? When is the last time a Muslim engaged in a terrorist attack?

          • pennywit

            I would say not Jared Loughner, but any of the home-grown American crazies.

          • jim_m

            So Antifa then.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            And how many of our “home-grown American crazies” have done it in the name of Allah? An indictment of the religion together with a society that constantly denigrates its own history and Western Civilization as a whole.

          • pennywit

            Oh, they pick an excuse. Anything to glorify Gleefnarb.

            But I also have a problem tarring an entire religious faith based on the views/actions of a subset of that group. I know Muslims who’ve come to America specifically to get away from religious terrorism and extremism. Sadly, people in America have discriminated against them or harassed them based on their religion.

            That’s why (way, way back in the thread), I talked about carefully threading the needle on this.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            The Muslim “problem” is really a Muslim problem. Muslims kill more Muslims than anyone else. But it’s been a problem for centuries and appears to be metastasizing at an alarming rate. I don’t know how Western Civilization deals with it if it refuses to heal itself – but no more importing it without excellent vetting.

          • pennywit

            In an ideal world, we would put a fence around the Middle East (except Israel) with a single telephone line leading out. We’d leave a message that says “Please call us when you’ve figured things out.” Problem is, a lot of the oil is there.

            I’m not fond of our allies OR our enemies in the Arab world.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I agree. My 3 yr old grandson is telling me it’s my nap time [he wants to use the computer]. Talk later.

          • pennywit

            Not long ago, my 3-year-old niece told me “move” to get me out of her favorite chair. I told her that she had not properly asserted a possessory claim on the chair, and therefore I would not yield up my rights. She looked vaguely confused and wandered off.

            Later, when her mother was sitting in that chair, I suggested she tell her mother to move.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            That’s the way! Teach ’em to hate lawyers at a young age.

          • The Arab world leaves out one of the chief international sponsors of mohamedan violence…

            Iran.

          • It’s up to their co-religionists to curb the bad behavior of the outliers, else that broad brush is entirely justified.

          • Retired military

            “Congratulations. You stopped a few Muslim terrorists”
            Which is a few more than Obama did.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            So, like our ruling elites, you’re saying: “Shut up and live [or die] with terrorism. We’re helpless because our laws/values/and/or Constitution are suicide pacts.”

            Your attempt to relate the constant, worldwide acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam to the Animal Liberation Front and/or Dylan Roof fails.

          • pennywit

            So, like our ruling elites, you’re saying: “Shut up and live [or die] with terrorism. We’re helpless because our laws/values/and/or Constitution are suicide pacts.”

            On the flip side, we already have Teresa May calling for greater regulation of the Internet — essentially “They hate our freedom, so we’re going to have to give up our freedom.” I don’t desirable the idea that I should indefinitely mortgage my basic liberty — or that anybody else’s basic liberty ought to be sacrificed — for the sake of another person’s fear.

            Your attempt to relate the constant, worldwide acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam to the Animal Liberation Front and/or Dylan Roof fails.

            Don’t think so. My point is that you can’t defeat “terrorism.” You can defeat individual terrorists or terrorist organizations, but “terrorism” is a concept, not a coherent political organization.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You can defeat individual terrorists or terrorist organizations, but “terrorism” is a concept, not a coherent political organization.

            That’s a mighty fine hair you’re splitting. So maybe we get back to calling it what it is: Islamic Terrorism.

          • Brett Buck

            The western world effectively eliminated religious violence and oppression *by eliminating totalitarianism*. In the specific case of “Christianity”, which before the reformation was an extension of the Roman Empire, with largely the same authoritarian principle and roots, with a message of peace (actual message of peace, not “peace = submission” like Islam), it had all the features of current Islamic violence, with only one notable exception – it is pretty clear that Jesus didn’t condone it, and said do. In the case of Islam, the violence is completely baked-in to their holy book.

            But what it took to remove this from the west was concerted effort by the believers over an extended period. You see *none* of that here, again, as above, quite the opposite, you hear crickets every time, and at most, whining about non-existent “backlash”.

            At this point, unfortunately, without cooperation, it will take very drastic measures. Not totalitarianism, but positive and effective action. Everybody, to a man, knows how to start – kick them out unless they accept the principles of our civilizationl primarily accept that there is a difference between their religious duty and their civic duty. That violates NONE of our principles, and only a completely idiotic argument from, well, idiots (like the entire “unlimited immigration”/”world without borders” community) suggests it does.

          • pennywit

            Everybody, to a man, knows how to start – kick them out unless they accept the principles of our civilization

            You have to define “principles of our civilization” very carefully. And if somebody is already a citizen, you don’t just get to kick him out. He has rights.

          • Brett Buck

            Right, which is why no one is saying they want to kick out US citizens, just “refugees” and “illegal immigrants”. US Citizens have full rights of citizenship. Along with that is the responsibility to follow all the laws and principles of being a citizen – none of which is agitate for sharia law, or try to create enclaves of degenerates into which others are not welcome or fear to tread, or, ram trucks into crowds and stab people at random shouting allah akbar.

          • pennywit

            But what it took to remove this from the west was concerted effort by the believers over an extended period. You see *none* of that in the case of Islamic violence.

            Nope. Muslims never condemn terror. never happens.

          • Retired military

            Or nuking a few places in the middle east. Whichever is easier.

            They do knife attack. We nuke a city. Eventually they will say “Hey maybe this isn’t such a good idea”

          • pennywit

            Boom London. Boom Parie ….

        • pennywit

          As to the more immediate threat … I’m wrestling with how to best express this.

          It seems to me that we’re walking a fairly dangerous tightrope with regards to Islamic terrorism. On the one hand, we clearly need to get rid of the terrorists — al-Qaida, ISIS, Hezbollah, anybody who thinks unprovoked violence in the service of Islam is righteous.

          But at the same time, I’m wary of rhetoric from Starnes and people like him. Freedom of religion and tolerance for others’ religious practices are not mere multiculturalism or political correctness. They are one of the bedrock values of the Western world.

          We have to be very careful about threading the needle here. We have to make it clear that the issue is with Muslim terrorists, not Muslims as a whole. Otherwise, I think we play directly into the terrorists’ agenda.

          • “Freedom of religion and tolerance for others’ religious practices are not mere multiculturalism or political correctness. They are one of the bedrock values of the Western world.”

            I agree – to an extent. If a religion demands human sacrifice, there’s no precedent in western law that authorizes such. If a religion demands that all around it convert TO it or die, then… there’s a real problem trying to get it to play nice with others.

            “We have to make it clear that the issue is with Muslim terrorists, not Muslims as a whole.”

            Islam, as has been pointed out, is a political and governmental system as much as a religion. For the devout, it doesn’t seem possible to split off the religion from the political. (And that doesn’t even include the murderous infighting between the various sects in Islam. Imagine how much fun it’d be if Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians and Seventh Day Adventists were all out for blood against each other.)

            The culture itself doesn’t seem to have any of our acceptable social limits – IE beheading, maiming, lying and the like are all perfectly acceptable if it’s in the cause of Allah. The Muslims who left to get away from the mess in Iran and the ME to make their homes in the secular west have mostly adopted Western culture, and their ‘Islam’ is likely considered suspect by the true believers.

            All in all, this isn’t a religion that plays well with others – diversity proponents to the contrary. I don’t see an answer which allows unexamined immigration, or an unwillingness to assimilate to Western values.

          • pennywit

            JLaw, you have two choices. You can regard every Muslim who comes in your sight as an enemy and act accordingly, or you can regard every Muslim who comes into your sight as a fellow human being. It is true that most terrorists are Muslim. I do not dispute that. But it is equally true that most Muslims are not terrorists.

          • Scalia

            I regard every Muslim who comes to our shores from known terrorist hotbeds to be suspect until proven otherwise. If they can’t be thoroughly vetted, they need to go someplace else.

          • I’m glad you think it’s possible to make a binary choice on this. Much as it pains me, if those were the ONLY two options I’d choose the “regard every Muslim who comes in sight” as an enemy, and act accordingly. The health of my family, my culture and my country comes before their need to force the structures of their religion on us.

            But that’s an idiotic choice you’re forcing me to make.

            You’ll note above that I didn’t see an answer that allowed unexamined immigration. Yet that’s what the EU has had for a number of years, and it’s not working out well for them at all, as stories of ‘children’ that were in their late teens and early 20s seem to be a regular feature, as are the problems of importing a lot of people who are NOT assimilating in any way, shape or form. Yet the continual desire seems to be to turn the other way, to ignore the problems that are wracking the country, and indeed to charge the people who are saying there are indeed problems with hate speech.

            I don’t believe a nation that allows unrestricted immigration (which the ‘refugees’ were doing – the concept of a refugee is someone who’s running away from a problem in their country, with the intent of going back if possible. I don’t believe most of the ones in the EU intend to return.) can survive if the immigrants aren’t willing to assimilate.

            It is not the country’s responsibility to change its nature to make the immigrant comfortable, after all.

            In the end it boils down to whether practitioners of Islam can adjust to the secular nature of Western Society. So far, the results are decidedly mixed.

      • Retired military

        What would be more positive is no one having to die due to terrorism.

  • Wild_Willie

    Having a candlelight vigil is exactly what terrorist want to see. They are playing into their objectives. They become posters for future attacks. The reason the terrorists have wiggle room is because of people like you. ww

  • Retired military

    Don’t know the guy. But reading his posts in this thread I think his message is being reactive and politically correct isn’t helping. Being proactive and less PC would result in the need for candlelit vigils and benefit concerts.

  • Retired military
    • Walter_Cronanty

      Will enough Britains consider this their heritage?

      • pennywit

        Britons.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          Thank you. It didn’t look right, but spell check was of no help.

          • Retired military

            Blame me. I get blamed for everything else 🙂

          • pennywit

            Were you on the grassy knoll?

            Did you sabotage Robert Griffin’s career?

            Were you behind Fuller House?

          • Retired military

            Yes
            Yes And Kathy’s too
            Yes. Never watched it but I was behind it.

          • pennywit

            Were you behind Fuller House?

            Yes. Never watched it but I was behind it.

            I knew it!!! You do realize you violated the Geneva Convention with that one, right?

          • Retired military

            According to the leftists on this board I have violated a whole lot more.

  • Retired military
  • Walter_Cronanty

    Rather than writing an article based on one obscure radio personality’s take on the usefulness of candlelight vigils and benefit concerts in response to terrorists’ mass murder, a weightier and more important topic for Mr. Robertson would be our ruling elites’ response. Here are two good articles to start with: The groupthink in our public discourse is so pervasive it goes as unnoticed as the air. For example, let’s say a bunch of young girls are blown up at a pop concert. You have to say something about it. But what?

    Our political leaders are basically telling us that this kind of terrorism, random and deadly, is the price we have to pay for their policies of multiculturalism and political correctness. As if on cue, in the wake of Saturday’s terrorist attack in London political leaders are trotting out the usual treacly lines that have become so rote. But the words they pretend will provide comfort to anyone but the most naïve are borderline worthless. Worse, they’re an insult to the families who have had to experience the shocking pain of the sudden loss of a family member or friend at the hands of a terrorist.

    • pennywit

      Walter, in your opinion, what rights should Muslim American citizens and lawful residents have?

      • jim_m

        What in Walter’s comment makes you think he doesn’t think that they should have full civil rights? Or do you think that simply stating that islamism is a dangerous ideology somehow violates the rights of muslims?

        • pennywit

          I asked Walter, not you. And I have my reasons for asking. Now, shoo.

          • jim_m

            Sorry if I am disrupting your attempted gotcha.

          • pennywit

            Apology accepted. Now go stand in the corner.

          • jim_m

            you’re a dumbass

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Muslim citizens should have the full panoply of rights afforded all citizens. Lawful residents the same as all lawful residents.
        That doesn’t mean we should continue importing them without excellent vetting.

        • pennywit

          Thanks, Walt. I was curious about your baseline. At the municipal gov’t level, there have been a few situations where Muslims have attempted to exercise religious rights (for example, building new mosque buildings on privately owned land) only to meet resistance from locals who cite to some of the same concerns as Starnes (terrorism, multiculturalism, and political correctness).

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Many houses of worship, however named, have faced local resistance when planned. Mostly zoning/traffic issues. Ran into it a lot when I practiced.

          • pennywit

            I can certainly see that. That was actually cited in some cases I’ve followed. The problem in those cases (don’t have them immediately at hand) is that a very strong anti-Muslim presence in the community led to claims of pretextual discrimination.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I saw that same pretext applied to Sikh’s house of worship. Of course, it didn’t help that once the temple [or whatever it was called] was allowed and built that the head poobah moved in with his family and lived there.

          • pennywit

            the head poobah moved in with his family and lived there.

            This is why many lawyers wish they could put stun belts on their clients.

          • pennywit

            BTW (off topic), glad to see you guys let Robert Griffin go. I am, however, mildly surprised the Browns haven’t brought in Kaepernick for a workout, maybe signed him to a league-minimum contract. Sure, the man comes with issues, but are Brock Osweiler and Cody Kessler really the best answer at QB?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            More of answer than Kaepernick [I will admit that I would find it hard to root for him]. To quote Art Modell, he seems to have “diminishing skills.”
            I think that with an improved and stabilized O-line, we can have much improved offensive numbers. Who knows, we might even only have to use 3 quarterbacks this year.
            I’m going with Osweiler.

          • pennywit

            Totally fair, although I’m not sure Brock Osweiler’s going to be the long-term answer at QB. The problem with shopping on the free agent market is that the Peyton Mannings and Tom Bradys of the league usually stay where they are.

          • pennywit

            I just checked some articles at the Culpeper Star-Exponent. The issue there: The local government denied a religious group a pump-and-haul permit it would need to build a mosque. Those who voted against the permit swore up and down it was because of zoning/land-use issues, while those who voted for the permit said it was because of religious bias.

            Somebody did a little digging and found that the local gov’t had, over the past twenty years, generally granted pump-and-haul permits when they were sought. The DoJ looked into the matter and thought there was a violation of RLUIPA (I think that was the right acronym). The whole thing was sent to federal court, and the judge denied an initial motion to dismiss from the local gov’t.

            It eventually got settled, with the Muslim group getting the right to build its mosque.

        • pennywit

          That doesn’t mean we should continue importing them without excellent vetting.

          I’m distinctly uncomfortable with religious-based “vetting,” although I’m fine with instituting some form of “vetting” that takes into account country of origin and countries recently visited. It needs to be professionally done, though.

          Incidentally, I think that the current iteration of Trump’s travel ban would stand if somebody would take away Donald Trump’s Twitter phone.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I would agree.

          • jim_m

            Get over it. Islam is not like other religions in that it is both a religion as well as a political ideology. It recognizes not difference between church and state.

            As for the travel ban, if the affect of the law is legal then the attitude of people behind the law is irrelevant. What you are now advocating for is a thought crime.

          • Time for the Second Reconquista.

  • Was this piece by “David Robertson” just clickbait? I think so. I don’t do name calling, so I shall only say that I do not agree with the position of the author. I will, however, label the piece as clickbait trash. SHAME on Wizbang for littering my email box with trash. One more like this and you are out.

  • Retired military

    On the right we have people who say that candlelit vigils wont stop terrorism. On the left we have this (see below).
    Nowhere have I ever seen a mechanism to void a presidential election.

    Yet David wants to write a column about the folks on the right.

    • Retired military

      And I just saw this one

      Joyce E. Chaplin @JoyceChaplin1

      The USA, created by int’l community in Treaty of Paris in 1783, betrays int’l community by withdrawing from #parisclimateagreement today

      and who is Joyce Chaplin you may ask

      Chair, American Studies @harvard, and James Duncan Phillips Professor @harvard_history.

  • Retired military

    David

    How about doing your next column entitled

    The exFBI director uses Miss Cleo as a source.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/boom-trump-attorney-kasowitz-catches-comey-major-lie-oath-video/

    Long story short

    Comey testified today that he wrote his memo and gave it to a Columbia law professor to leak to the press after Trump did his infamous “Better hope there are not tapes” Tweet.

    Only thing is the NY Times printed the memo story the day before Trump tweeted his infamous “Better hope there are not tapes” Tweet.

    Miss Cleo be acallin ya man.

  • Dan Patterson

    That Robertson cat sort of missed the point, didn’t he?
    But his bio points out he’s “Not necessarily sane”; should he add “Not necessarily adult”?

  • phantomlaw

    Is he belittling vigils and benefits, or objecting to the fact that vigils and benefits are ALL the Left is willing to do about Islamic terrorism?