You have eyes but fail to see

Zubin Madon writes in the Huff. Post:

Terror Has No Religion - Debunking the Regressive Left's Cliches

In the wake of recent Islamist terror attacks, the Regressive Left has once again prioritised the defence of an ideology over the lives of its victims. Armchair experts were quick to pin the Orlando massacre on the perpetrator's 'mental health', thereby propounding the widely misconstrued and exaggerated correlation between mental illness and violence. After all, ableist slurs are inconsequential to the all important task of defending religion. While Salon blamed "toxic masculinity", others were busy trying to find anything to insinuate that Omar Mateen was gay, thus absolving religion of having divinely sanctioned homophobia for thousands of years. ...

It is time for true (classical) liberals to stand up and take the fort back from the Left. We must show that it is possible to call out religious ideologies that inspires terror, while at the same time condemn the anti-Muslim bigotry of the far-right. For without identifying the carcinogen i.e. religious extremism, it is impossible to stem the affliction.

He explains that the terrorists are well-educated Muslims who are following the Koran and other Islamic teachings. They are correctly interpreted the verses to kill infidels, and not taking them out of context.

Of course he has to condemn people like Trump who want to address the problem, or else the Huff. Post would not publish him.

While the NY Times is reluctant to criticize terrorists for their religion, it goes out of its way to attack Christians.

Peter Wehner writes a NY Times op-ed:

Dr. Dobson is not alone. Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, has praised Mr. Trump’s life as in many ways exemplary and said that he believes that “Donald Trump is God’s man to lead our nation.” Eric Metaxas, who has written popular biographies of William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, has rhapsodized about Mr. Trump and argued that Christians “must” vote for him because he is “the last best hope of keeping America from sliding into oblivion.”

And should your conscience tell you that Mr. Trump might not be the right choice, Robert Jeffress, the influential pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, explains that “any Christian who would sit at home and not vote for the Republican nominee” is “motivated by pride rather than principle.”

This fulsome embrace of Mr. Trump is rather problematic, since he embodies a worldview that is incompatible with Christianity. ...

What Mr. Trump admires is strength. For him, a person’s intrinsic worth is tied to worldly success and above all to power. ...

Those who believe this is merely reductionism should consider the words of Jesus: Do you have eyes but fail to see and ears but fail to hear? Mr. Trump’s entire approach to politics rests on dehumanization. If you disagree with him or oppose him, you are not merely wrong. You are worthless, stripped of dignity, the object of derision.

So Trump is not a real Christian because he admires strength, and speaks out against his enemies?

No, Christianity does not require a man to be a cuck. This article is an offensive attack on Christians.

Meanwhile the NY Times has multiple stories on how the Trump campaign is somehow anti-Semitic because a re-tweet had a symbol that could be interpreting as Jews financing Hillary Clinton's campaign.

I infer that Jews are financing her campaign, because the (((NY Times))) does not say that it is false. At least half of her campaign, anyway. She acts as if she is owned by the Jews, as she never speaks out against the Jewish Left and their goals.

Anti-semitism has come to mean Jews hating non-Jews.

I have eyes to see, and ears to hear. The NY Times and the Democrat Party and anti-White and anti-Christian. I agree with Christians pointing out what they see and hear.

Steve Sailer wrote:

The core of the Trump Phenomenon is the question of freedom of expression.

Donald Trump has come to be seen by both his enemies and his supporters as the living embodiment of a potential revival of the American tradition of free speech after the Obama ice age of political correctness. Trump’s backers tend to believe they have more to gain from frank, outspoken debate (whether in pragmatic advantages or simply in entertainment value), while his opponents assume that they, personally, have more to lose from a return to a freer market for ideas. …

In reality, though, Trump’s general worldview appears to be that of a typical New Yorker, only minus the ostentatious virtue signaling.

I do think that we need an open discussion of the demographic interests that are trying to manipulate us.