It’s A Trap! Lil’ Duval vs. The Tranny Taqiyyah

It’s Monday in America, which means that the various forces of the Kulturkampf pick up their weapons and renew their battle for the eyeballs of the nation.

A black comedian named Lil’ Duval appeared on the stereotypically black radio show, The Breakfast Club (grown men laughing at shit that isn’t funny and playing the dozens for 2 or more hours). In the course of the show, this exchange took place:

The conversation started with Donald Trump and the transgender military issue. Lil’ Duval dodges the issue at first. Charlemagne asks what would he do if he banged a tranny.

I don’t care! She dyin’!

You take away a person’s power of choice by not telling them

I mess with girls with kids, just to be sure.

Why can’t Negroes tell the difference between a vagina and an anus? I understand that education in America is not very good, but girls have two holes on the bottom side (there’s also a urethra down there, but you can’t really do anything with it unless you’re into pee).

Predictably, the tranny Twitter screeching could be heard for miles.

Laverne Cox:

“Some folks think it’s ok to joke about wanting to kill us,” Cox wrote on Twitter. “We have free speech but that speech has consequences and trans folks are experiencing the negative consequences with our lives. It hurts my spirit cause this isn’t funny. Our lives matter. Trans murder isn’t a joke.”

Janet Mock:

“This was not the first time that I’ve been misgendered, dismissed, told that I am an abomination, that I need medical help and God, et cetera, et cetera,” Mock wrote. “Boo boo: You are not original. Everything you’ve spewed has been said to me and my sisters before — hundreds of times. But there are deeper consequences to this casual ignorance.”

“Until cis people — especially heteronormative men — are able to interrogate their own toxic masculinity and realize their own gender performance is literally killing trans women, cis men will continue to persecute trans women and blame them for their own deaths,” Mock continued. “If you think trans women should disclose and ‘be honest,’ then why don’t you work on making the damn world safe for us to exist in the first place? The ‘I’d kill a woman if I found out’ rhetoric is precisely why so many women hold themselves so tight — the stigma and shame attached to our desires need to be abolished.”

Long story short, it’s your fault that trannies lie by omission that they have, or once had, a penis, because they are afraid of what might happen if they tell the truth.

Essentially, Tranny Taqiyyah.

What is Taqiyyah, you ask? From Encylopedia Britannica:

Taqiyyah, in Islam, the practice of concealing one’s belief and foregoing ordinary religious duties when under threat of death or injury. Derived from the Arabic word waqa (“to shield oneself”), taqiyyah defies easy translation. English renderings such as “precautionary dissimulation” or “prudent fear” partly convey the term’s meaning of self-protection in the face of danger to oneself or, by extension and depending upon the circumstances, to one’s fellow Muslims. Thus, taqiyyah may be used for either the protection of an individual or the protection of a community. Moreover, it is not used or even interpreted in the same way by every sect of Islam. Taqiyyah has been employed by the Shīʿites, the largest minority sect of Islam, because of their historical persecution and political defeats not only by non-Muslims but also at the hands of the majority Sunni sect.

Unlike Christians, who must profess their faith, even in the face of persecution or death (because God is truth), Muslims are permitted to lie if they have “prudent fear” or are scared of stuff. That’s the same argument Janet Mock is presenting in defense of trannies tricking men into having sex with them (how you can be afraid of a man’s fist, but actively seek his dick remains a mystery).

Most troubling is the deprivation of agency that Cox, Mock and others seem to advance. These transgender activists scream about their own agency from the rooftops, how they should be able to do what they want, when they want, where they want, without ramifications or even disapproval. Yet men that they desire are not, in their minds, permitted to reject them on the basis that they have, or once had, a penis. How people can demand “respect” while actively denying that others have the right to their own personal and sexual preferences, is baffling.

Actually it isn’t. The wonderful thing about “Social Justice”: Other people don’t have the right to tell you no, as long as you have enough oppression points.

P.S.

As always, I have insert this disclaimer, because people are stupid: No, trannies should not be killed, or beaten, or otherwise harmed for obtaining sex by fraud. But it makes them pieces of shit for doing so.

Hoes Gon’ Be Hoes: The July 4th Freedom Edition – Featuring Eugene Robinson

The only reasonable response to the massacre in Orlando is to ban the sale of military-style assault weapons. All else, I’m afraid, is just noise.

Oh really? Please, enlighten me, Eugene.

If this ensconces me in an ideological corner, I’m fine with that. If it insults the Constitution, so be it – any other response would do far greater harm to our freedoms. Or we could argue for a while and then do nothing. We’ve tried that course of action many times, and it doesn’t work.

Glad to see you’re fine with shredding up the Constitution. While we’re at it, let’s get rid of those pesky 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, you know, the ones that were passed and signed by racist white men.

An Islamic State sympathizer was able to go into a gun store and buy both a pistol and an AR-15-style semiautomatic assault rifle, which he used to kill 49 men and women at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Had he been armed with the pistol alone, he still would have killed people – but not so many. Keeping military-grade combat weapons out of the hands of maniacs should not be a controversial idea.

An Islamic State sympathizer with no criminal record, who was on at least one of the so-called “terror watchlists,” was interviewed multiple times by the FBI, but no one in the federal government took action against him. This is not an indictment of the right to keep and bear arms; it is an indictment of this comical and dangerous national security kabuki theater that tramples on the rights of the law-abiding while failing to stop criminals.

And the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and the semiautomatic pistol fire rounds at the exact same rate, Eugene. That’s what semiautomatic means; every time you squeeze the trigger, the weapon discharges a round. You can only fire a semiautomatic weapon, rifle or pistol, as quickly as you can squeeze the trigger and how tight the trigger pull is.

The Second Amendment enshrines the right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court has ruled that this is an individual right, not a collective one. The court has made clear, however, that this does not preclude reasonable gun control measures. Not all weapons must be considered suitable for private hands.

Eugene, it’s an individual right as a matter of simple logic. The first ten amendments were drafted by the same people and passed at the same time, hence the name, “The Bill of Rights.”To accept the disarmament set’s argument that it is a “collective” right, would mean that “the people” mentioned in the Second Amendment, are an entirely different “the people” than “the people” in Amendments 1, 4, 9, and 10.

When the framers wrote of “arms,” they were thinking about muskets and single-shot pistols. They could not have foreseen modern rifles or high-capacity magazines. They lived at a time when it was impossible to imagine one man barging into a crowded room and killing more than one or two people before having to reload and surely being subdued. Today it is not only imaginable but tragically commonplace.

Ah, the blatherings of the blissfully ignorant. At this time, I draw your attention to a weapon known as the Kalthoff repeater, engineered and constructed in the 1650s by the famous Kalthoff family of gunsmiths. This rifle was well-known because it could discharge 20-30 rounds per minute in 1650. The Kalthoff did not enter popular use because of its expense to construct and maintain compared to a muzzle-loading musket.

So despite being evil racist, white men, with their tiny pea brains that were able to fight and defeat the greatest empire of their day, and construct an experiment in republicanism personal liberty that was unheard of its time, and the fact that the type of weapon you claim they could not have conceived of existed in a costly and primitive form for 130 years prior to their enshrinement of the Second Amendment, it is impossible that they could have conceived of a weapon that more or less already existed in their own time. And this is without mentioning the existence of grenades, sniper rifles, mortars, cannons, and warships, some of which were owned privately by early American citizens and loaned to the government.

Okay, Eugene.

No hunter needs an AR-15 to bring down a deer. None of us needs such a weapon to defend our families against intruders. And for those who believe assault rifles offer protection against a tyrannical government, I have sobering news: If and when the black helicopters come, they will be accompanied by tanks.

Eugene, we live in a racist white society. I live in mortal dread that the KKK might decide to come lynch me. How could you deny me my right to life and try to legally bar me from the tools that could mean my survival against a lynch mob of hateful white racists?

30 rounds sounds just right for controlling a homicidal racist mob. Nothing puts the fear into a rioting mob more than the threat of taking a few of them with you. Because nobody wants to be the one of the ones you take.

And tanks are your escalation point, huh? You think a tank is a trump card? Okay then.

Why focus exclusively on the guns? Because other proposed solutions would violate the letter and spirit of the Constitution – and surely wouldn’t work anyway.

Wait a minute, now you are worried about violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution? The guy who wrote this in his second paragraph:

If it insults the Constitution, so be it.

What the fuck? Can you keep your argument going in a straight line, Eugene?

One of the presidential candidates has suggested a ban on Muslim immigration. The idea would be laughable if it were not so dangerously un-American.

May I direct your attention to the 1798 Aliens Act, which gave the President the power to expel aliens “judged dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States” or suspected of “treasonable or secret machinations.”? How about the 1903 Immigration Act which gave legal grounds to bar and/or deport Anarchists? How’s about the Smith Act of 1940 which allowed for the barring and/or deportation of any alien who USED to be an Anarchist? Maybe the 1960 Internal Security Act which codified the barring and deportation of communists, fascists, and totalitarians?

Now, the federals have relaxed immigration based on ideology since then, but America has spent more years barring people for holding certain ideological positions inherently antagonistic to the United States government than it has allowing them entry.

First, it would be useless. The Orlando murderer – I don’t want to use his name – was born not overseas but in New York, just like the presidential candidate in question. And in the San Bernardino killing spree, also inspired by the Islamic State, the wife was an immigrant but the husband was born in the United States. The self-radicalization of American citizens is not going to be solved by banning all believers in Islam from entry.

Yeah, because writing the name, OMAR MATEEN, is a mystical totem that will summon him like the Candyman to enter the world through your computer screen and shoot you with an AR-15. If you are going to bag on early Americans for being too ignorant and stupid to be able to conceive of a weapon that can discharge a round every time you squeeze the trigger, can you restrain your urge to indulge in supertitious peasant nonsense?

Also, I couldn’t help but notice in your comprehensive list of Islamic terrorists, you omitted Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, the Kuwaiti-born Chattanooga, TN shooter; The Chechnya-born Tsarnaev brothers; The Egypt-born Yusuf Ibrahim who shot and decapitated two Copts in New Jersey; Nigeria-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who tried to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas. I’m sure these omissions were just oversights, not purposeful dissimulation in service to a narrative.

And “Self-radicalization,” is the statists’ new buzzword to strip the people of what few rights they have in the name of “safety.

Which would be impossible, of course. I suppose immigration officers could ask every foreign visitor whether he or she is a Muslim, but then what? If the answer is no, wave them through? Stop them for further questioning if they “look” Muslim, whatever that means? Don’t you think Islamic State operatives might be smart enough to have Bibles in their carry-on rather than Qurans?

Aww, look. Eugene is attempting to be flippant. But I am glad Eugene, in a rare moment of honesty mentioned that Islamic State operatives might be smart enough to carry Bibles instead of Qurans, since that touches on the Islamic notion of Taqiyya in which Muslims may lie, or commit otherwise prohibited acts if they “fear” persecution. Jihadists have expanded the concept of Taqiyya to “the West is persecuting us, therefore we may Taqiyya them in the form of deception to commit terrorist acts.”

That notion of deception in service to the Jihad is a point in favor of the unnamed “New York candidate,” not against.

Nice work, Eugene.

Attempting such a prohibition would also be obscene in a nation that enshrines religious freedom in the First Amendment.

The same nation that enshrines the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment?

Another possible response would involve more vigilant surveillance. The Orlando shooter had been interviewed by the FBI at least twice because of alleged extremist leanings or connections. He was apparently on a terrorism watch list for a time, but was removed after authorities decided there was no need to keep him under suspicion.

More surveillance, more security theater, less rights. By logic, the people with the fewest rights in America (prison inmates) should be the safest. Reality tells a different story. And as Eugene himself mentions, the security theater failed in the case of OMAR MATEEN.

By all means, Congress should immediately ban gun sales to anyone on such a watch list. But that wouldn’t have helped in Orlando. No level of surveillance remotely permissible under the Constitution would allow authorities to detect all instances of self-radicalization and act on them. We put people in jail for what they do, not what they think.

Yeah, you see Eugene, in your stunted understanding of the constitution, there’s these two parts, one called the Fifth Amendment, and the other called the Fourteenth Amendment which state, in part, that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The so-called terror watch lists have no due process mechanism. And there are more ways to deny a person their liberties than putting them in jail, such as denying them their rights to liberty or property because a bureaucrat arbitrarily put their name on a list. I know you don’t give a damn about any part of the Constitution that isn’t the First Amendment (since that’s how you make your money) but try and expand your knowledge base a little.

Should there be universal background checks for gun purchases? Yes, of course. But the Orlando killer passed a background check. It is not possible to have a free society without the presumption of innocence.

And he passed the background check, why? BECAUSE HE DIDN’T HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD! Ding-ding-ding! Tell the man what he’s won, Johnny!

Freedom is possible, however, without the right to buy military weapons designed for killing sprees. Banning them would not end mass killings, but it would mean fewer deaths. If we do not act, the blood of future victims will be on all of our hands.

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of THE VICTIMS…by not actually shooting them themselves? Every man is responsible for his own crimes, not the person standing next to him. Everyone is a law-abiding citizen until they break the law. It is nonsensical to strip law-abiding citizens of their rights on the speculation that they might, at some unforeseen date and time, engage in a criminal act. It’s as tyrannical and asinine as suggesting that “freedom is possible, however, without the right to privacy which terrorists use to plot killing sprees.”

P.S. I am fascinated every time a black person gets on the gun control bandwagon, considering that the original gun control laws in America were specifically intended to keep blacks disarmed and unable to defend themselves against lawful and unlawful violence. Guess house negroes got to eat too, even if it means siding with racists, and slavers, and tyrants against your own people.

Archived Source