Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Epic Rant

Via the Gates of Vienna.  The Ann Barnhardt epic “jackass” rant against Islamofascist appeasing Senator Lindsey Graham*.  A stark contrast to Dhimmi Dave’s disastrous dipshit diplomacy.

Don’t be put off by the lady’s religious outrage. She takes the “religion of peace” to task demonstrating virtual cojones the size of Jupiter that no modern politician seems to possess.

* Caution: Smoked Bacon Suras ahead.

A swift doff of the chapeau to new kid on the block, The Commentator

28 Comments

  1. JB says:

    ‘This ends with you sobbing in the mensroom’

    Brilliant

  2. CountingCats says:

    Damn,

    I was gunna post the first of these directly on the site.

  3. Lynne says:

    Cats, please do. I didn’t have time this morning and I’m a bit short of it right now.

  4. RAB says:

    Wow! She’s mad as hell and she aint gonna take it anymore!

    My kind of woman. Give her a Billion dollars and point her at the White House.

    It’s time the West stopped with the cringing moral relativism and stood up and said…

    Actually no, our Civilisation IS better than your Barbarism mascarading as civilisation. Everything that you rely on from planes to cars to the tanks and the guns needed to prop up your hellish regimes came from the West. Nothing of worth has ever come from your tribal fascism, and cult of hate.

    But we are ruled by the genuflecters like Barry and iDave arn’t we?

    Ace post again Lynne.

  5. NickM says:

    This is getting very, very silly.

    First, line, first comment over at GoV…

    “Bacon bookmarks? Sheer genius!”

    Yeah, right. And so was the General Theory of Relativity.

    I wish I had extemporised more in my post on iDave’s trip to Pakistan. I wish I had but I thought the lines could be read between (and I’ve got stuff to do). If we stand for anything then we should stand for a civilization worth struggling for and bacon is for eatin’ and Chrome is for book-marking. A civilization “defended” by childhood “pranks” like burning a book or the misuse of the flesh of the pig is just something I can’t fucking be arsed to defend. So she’s got “balls and a brain”. True but it’s unfortunate that the Good Lord mixed-up their placing. Whilst Islam is an appalling doctrine (doctrines usually are) is this really the way to show “our” moral or intellectual superiority to it? Is bookmarking with rashers what the Triumph of the West has fucking come to?

    Criticise the Qu’ran! I have, frequently. Mock Muslims who follow it literally and appreciate that any Islamic tradition that adheres to it to the letter is profoundly dangerous in it’s intrinsic combination of OCD and violence but… This is a shark jump for me. This is just as pathetic as the raging mobs in the Mid-East (and elsewhere) who burnt Lurpak after the Motoons. There is a deadly fight (people are being killed and maimed everyday) right now… But this is reducing it to the level of something I last saw in the playground of Greenside Primary School.

    I don’t know whether folks will wind-up crying in the men’s room but it sounded more like the little boys room to me. Of course Ann Barnhardt has the right, nay the duty, to protect the First Amendment but, quite apart from the fact that she looked deranged; that is not the way to do it. I think the Qu’ran burning pastor in Florida is, to use Barnhardt’s term, a “jackass” but then that is his right and whilst he has that right and I passionately believe in that right it doesn’t mean I support his pathetic, vainglorious primary school “statement” either.

    For that matter, I support Barnhardt’s freedom too whilst still finding her arguments, specious drivel aimed full-square at rousing the rabble – much as what she sees her arch-enemies doing.

    Ann Barnhardt is no Pat Condell – that’s for fucking sure.

    We must be better than that sort of deranged rant.

  6. HSLD says:

    I say good luck to her

    ” Go back to hell from whence you came ” – marvellous :)

  7. johnnyrvf says:

    NickM “a civilisation worthworth struggling for” , which civilisation would that be then?

  8. Stonyground says:

    The fact that she stated that she was a Christian made me think that you could easily find just as much nastiness in the Bible. I also think that the actual Koran burning thing was about solidarity with the constitutional rights of the mad pastor Jones more than anything. I don’t really approve of book burning although since the invention of the printing press it is merely symbolic.

  9. Lynne says:

    Regardless of the fact that she comes across as a religious nutjob, she has taken a stand againt the erosion of free speech in the US and set the government and the slit-throatedly aggressive, pyromaniacally inclined and explosively offended Islamists at defiance. While the message is emotionally charged and overly dramatic it doesn’t lessen the fact that she has a point. If she wants to use bacon bookmarks and set fire to her own property, she can. It is her right. It is not a valid excuse to kill soldiers, turn people into bombs or go out, abduct foreigners off the street and behead them.

    Had she been protesting against the Islamic violence that flared globally following the Jyllands Posten cartoons, by scribbling images of Mo (shades of Draw Mohammed Day which was equally prankish), and then burning them would the message have had more or less impact or deserved more or less respect from supporters of free speech? Personally I think she’s foolish as well as brave but she said what needed to be said. Such an outburst would be completely unnecessary if politicians weren’t so cowardly, dishonest and dhimmified.

  10. HSLD says:

    ” you could easily find just as much nastiness in the Bible ”

    Two things :-

    1) No you can’t, not by a long chalk

    2) The Bible needs to be considered in it’s entirety, the New Testament is where Christ brings a new message, and this modifies a lot of what is written in the Old Testament

    I’m not a Christian, I’m agnostic, but my wife is Born Again* and I’ve had a lot of discussions about theology over the last 20 years.
    In my opinion Christianity, if practiced according to the workshop manual, is a force for good. On balance.

    Equating Islam with any other religion doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever. It’s the odd one out, the one that demands you submit or live as a slave, or die.

    * It doesn’t cramp your style half as much as you might think.

  11. CountingCats says:

    I’m with Nick on this one.

    I did enjoy the smackdown of Graham Lindsay and the defense of the first amendment, but the rest of it was a bit puerile, even if it did make her point.

  12. CountingCats says:

    And her weird and misinformed comments on Muslim boys were rather sick making.

  13. dfwmtx says:

    Well, if it’d make you feel better, I’m an educated theist who has learned too much about lots of religions, and I’ll volunteer to shred a Koran, a Bible, a Talmud, a Bhagava-Gita, a two-fer of Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, a copy of “The Audacity of Hope”, “An Inconvienient Truth”, “Origin of the Species”, “The God Who Wasn’t There’, and a print-out of the Principia Discordia if it’ll make you feel more comfortable that this isn’t just a Christians versus Muslim fight.

    And really, those who are equating the evils of Christianity with the evils of Islam are ignoring something. Namely that *currently* it’s the Islamic religion which is doing all the killing in the name of the deity. Christianity has largely gotten that out of its system whereas Muslims just killed 10 UN workers because they felt their God was offended. But if one still wants to argue the point, please, point out where Christians have killed in the name of Jesus in the 20th century. I’m sure the Muslim body count will still be higher.

  14. RAB says:

    Well I’m not. I don’t care how childish and puerile it is, enough’s enough. Time to draw a line in the sand.

    Burning a book that is your own property should be entirely up to you. I generally dislike the idea of burning books because you are not trying to destroy the thing itself, but the ideas that in contains, and everybody is entitled to believe whatever fuckwitted ideas they like, so long as it doesn’t impact adversely on others.

    The trouble is, Islam does impact adversely on others. It is its whole reason for being. Believe what we Muslims believe, give us respect that we have not earned, submit to our sole point of view, or we will kill you, or enslave you and rape all your women and children. Like HSLD said, it’s the odd one out, it brooks no compromise like other beliefs. You submit or you die.

    Those who died in the UN in Afganistan, died not knowing that any slight to Islam had taken place, they were completely innocent of anything. But they were cynically targeted by the Taliban to make their own point. The Bible burning was just an excuse to get into the compound. Islam has no regard for anything but itself. They blew up the historical statues of Buddha, not because they were “idolatorous” because they had been there 2000 years already, plenty of time to take umbridge you would have thought. No, they blew them up to piss us in the West off.

    Well like I said, enough’s enough. Time to piss them off right back. Time to tell them their so called religion is a malignant piece of pure evil that defiles all mankind. Time to open a Bacon Butty stall outside your nearest mosque. Time to tell them we want Halal meat labelled so we can boycott it, time to tell them to stuff their creeping in by the back door Sharia Law, we have a better one of our own, time to generally tell them to piss off enirely.

    So I say it’s time to fight back

  15. dfwmtx says:

    I forget, we’re only allowed to destroy Korans if they’re non-Wahabi Korans when they enter the Wahabi theocratic monarchy of Saudi Arabia. Maybe we need to send some liberals over to Saudi Arabia to tell the religious police that Koran destruction is wrong, m’kay, and disrespectful to the Muslim religion. Didn’t someone tell these Muslims they’re not supposed to disrespect Islam?

  16. HSLD says:

    I found my way to Ms Barnhardts website, where she has a picture of her gun collection.

    The pink AR-15 is a classic. Seeing as she isn’t bound by the Geneva Convention then I would recommend ballistic tip hunting ammo, which will take a limb clean off. It doesn’t penetrate barriers like car doors or windows too well though, so she should mix it up one for one with 62 grain semi armour piercing NATO rounds. Maybe she should make the last three rounds in the magazine tracer, so it’s obvious when the time comes to reload.

    She should get rid of that crappy plastic ‘combat’ shotgun and replace it with a Saiga-12 ( based on the AK 47, just sold mine, one hell of a gun ) and a drum mag loaded with slug.
    12g slug goes through anything, even armoured glass like it wasn’t even there.

    And she should buy a Remington 870 pump action, because they ALWAYS work even while semiauto’s are jamming.

    But they won’t send anyone to fight her mano-a-mano. Nothing scares these misogynistic little pricks more than a strong confident woman ( I know, I’m married to one )

    They’ll send ‘human rights’ lawyers to sue her out of existence and sneaky little bastards who’ll put a bomb under her car.

  17. RAB says:

    I found my way to Ms Barnhardts website

    Well you are a better, or more patient Gooogler than I am Gunga Din.

    So give us a link. I’d like to know more about the lady.

    I have ordered the Webley Typhoon by the way, it’s in the post. You sure seem to know your weapons HSLD.

  18. Laird says:

    I don’t really approve of book burning although since the invention of the printing press it is merely symbolic.

    Which is precisely why book burning is extremely appropriate: it is symbolic. Far from being merely a “prank,” it is the clearest, most unambiguous statement one can make about the ideas expressed in that book; no one misunderstands the message you’re trying to convey. Burning Korans (early and often) is the most meaningful action we in the west can take in opposition to the evil that is Islam.

    I agree 100% with RAB.

  19. EndivioR says:

    Part 1 was better than the sequel. I like the word “jackass”, and plan to use it occasionally, even though it doesn’t work quite so well in a British accent. I think it’s the hint of a dipthongised second “a” that makes it.

    She strikes me as a nice lady. She is the first person I’ve seen on YouTube I think I would trust as a babysitter with my three-year-old.

    I must admit I kept on thinking how sticky my fingers would be with all that bacon. However, I expect the grease aided ignition, so there’s method in it. If you are going to burn a book, at least make sure it crackles a bit.

  20. Lynne says:

    There’s this pathologically snide twerp called James Wolcott who is contributing editor for Vanity Fair. He doesn’t like certain types of outspoken women or certain types of men. He thinks that men who like chicks with guns are redneck, negative IQ Neanderthals who are insecure in their masculinity and are fit for nothing other than wanking off to gun porn and glugging beer in topless bars. Now I know this isn’t true because I’m acquainted with some seriously smart blokes who like chicks with guns and would most likely enjoy a night out at a topless bar.

    So Bernhardt is somewhat extreme, but Woolly Wolcott, the snotty, socialist sophisticate, is what the flip side of the coin looks like. It’s twice as nasty and infinitely more poisonous.

  21. HSLD says:

    That’s an interesting theory – the sight of an armed female being attractive to men who are insecure in their masculinity – I can’t even begin to imagine what is going on inside his head.

    I always thought that the opposite was true, being a neanderthal. I suppose I’m not as ‘nuanced’ as James and his liberal elite pals.

    I would honestly feel sorry for such a pathetic specimen of humanity, if it wasn’t for the fact that he has somehow managed to wheedle himself into a position of minor influence where people actually listen to his bullshit.

  22. SimonF says:

    What NickM says.

    Also, as I said at Longrider’s, I can’t help but get a sneaky feeling that if someone was to burn the US flag in front of her she wouldn’t be such a staunch defender of free speech.

  23. NickM says:

    OK folks…

    So why do people object to Islam? RAB says, “The trouble is, Islam does impact adversely on others.” Yes, it does. You can’t take a Bible into Shoddy Absurdia for example. Burning a Qu’ran is therefore a sort of quid pro quo for that or to put it another way it’s tit for tat. You can more pleasurably and less histrionically repudiate Islam by just having a beer whilst munching on a ham sammich whilst flicking through the latest edition of “Gay Hobbit Porn – Monthly”.

    Leave the book burnings and the flag burnings and the “Days of Rage”* to them. Point out the absurdities in their beliefs (you know mermaid is halal?) and mock mercilessly but don’t descend to their level because by making it an “us versus them” we essentially buy into the Islamist worldview of Dar al harb and Dar al Islam. Transcend that by remaining secular on the question. They can be the house of submission – fine. That doesn’t make us the house of war. Maintaining that alone spikes their guns. I am (you might have noticed) a blogger and that means learning some heuristics. The first is “Don’t feed the troll”. A great deal of Islamic fury against “The West” is based on paranoia. Don’t feed that furnace with pointless stunts like burning a Qu’ran because that makes the paranoia come true and that is exactly what the mullahs want. Do you not think this stunt was greeted with delight in the corridors of power in Tehran?

    We need to have the confidence in our own culture to just “Keep Calm and Carry On” because that is the last thing they want. Histrionic gestures make people look like they are running scared. I’m not scared. The Islamists clearly are and so clearly is Ann Barnhardt.

    All we have to do is hold the line and occasionally tell the likes of Anjem Choudary and his lawyers with a spurious “Human Shites” action to fuck off. It is that simple.

    *Arguably more fun than “Days of Thunder” but then so is a major amputation.

  24. NickM says:

    SimonF,
    Indeed.

  25. Lynne says:

    Nick, put like that you make a strong argument.

  26. Laird says:

    “mock mercilessly but don’t descend to their level because by making it an ‘us versus them’ we essentially buy into the Islamist worldview of Dar al harb and Dar al Islam.”

    It’s not we who made this an “us versus them”: they did. “Tit for tat” works just fine for me. We’re in an existential battle, folks; sitting up on your perch thinking lofty thoughts won’t cut it. Nor will criticizing those who are actually taking up the cause and fighting what should be your battle.

    And good luck with that “mock mercilessly” idea. How about jokes? “Mohammed and his 9-year-old wife went into a bar . . . .” Yeah, good one. Or better yet, try publishing some anti-Mohammed cartoons. Oh, that’s been tried, hasn’t it? Worked out rather well, right?

    At the height of the Viet Nam War protests in the late 60′s flag burning became rather common here in the US. It may have generated more heat than light, as they say, but it most certainly communicated an idea extremely forcefully. It was a very potent tool. Koran burning is the same. We need to see more of it, not less.

  27. Paul Marks says:

    Without the Christian “religous nutjobs” there is no hope for the United States – none. And no hope for the West as a whole.

    Certainly there are athiests who are dedicated defenders of freedom – such as Randian Objectivists. But they are a tiny minority.

    Like it or not, but the vast majority of people who are willing to defend freedom are these Christian “relgious nutjobs” with their belief that “rights come from God – not from government”. Without them freedom (and the civilization that depends upon it) is dead.

    As for Senator Graham.

    “we are in a war” – yes, and it is an ENDLESS war so using war as an excuse for attacks on freedom means that freedom dies forever.

    “in World War II….” in World War II defences of Adolf Hitler (and so on) were censored, not attacks upon him.

    So to say “we are at war with Islam – therefore people must not be allowed to attack Islam” makes no sense.

    Accept, of course, Senator Graham would say we are not in a war with Islam – it is just with naughty people who “interpret” Islam wrongly.

    You know – people like Muhammed. He and his followers knew nothing about Islam – only Senator Graham, and co, truly understands Islam.

    He reminds me of the Obama Administration “intelligence” commander Mr Crapper (or whatever his name is) going on about how the Muslim Brotherhood is a “secular” organization.

    Most likely they told him that – knowing he was an infidel blinded by ignorance (it is a religious duty for a Muslim to lie to such a fool).

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: