Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Arguing with the New Anti-SemitesAs I related in an earlier post, I stopped to engage some New York City terror supporters in debate. My wife and I were in New York, you see. (This was back in early June.) We were strolling down the avenue, way down the avenue, from midtown down to Chinatown. Along the way we stopped to look at things, and to rest. It was a really hot day. We took the subway back uptown from Chinatown, and in Chinatown, we watched some fascinating musical performances, from, what I assume were traditional Chinese musicians. But that's not what I'm concerned with today.
Passing through Union Square on our way down, I noticed a Palestinian flag and a small crowd protesting Israel. This was after the flotilla debacle, but long enough afterward to know the facts, you know the ones that clearly demonstrated that these were not "peace activists", but terrorists looking for trouble.
This was the usual bunch of moral retards demanding that the U.S. end its support for Israel, and that we all boycott Israel and Israeli products, you know, like the Nazis urged their followers to boycott Jewish owned businesses . . . not that I'm trying to connect the two anti-Jewish causes. They've done that on their own.
Seeing these idiots made me angry. I was in a fine mood up until that point, but now I could feel the bile rising and the need to do something. I tried to keep walking. I told my wife I was angry. She knows how I get when I see things like this. I didn't want to mess up her day though by getting into a tussle with the terror supporters, but we discussed it for a minute and she let me stay for a few minutes, not for a long time, but just enough time to get out some of my anger.
One of the participants offered me one of their flyers. I skimmed it as he held it out. I was mostly trying to formulate the correct response. Maybe it was the heat, the long walk, or just the inner anger, but I gave the the wrong one. I told him that I didn't support their Nazi inspired hatred against Israel - or something to that effect. Yes, I established my point, and let him know where I stand, and it began the argument, but thinking about it later, and realizing that I began incorrectly, I asked myself, "What would Michael have done?" He's great at this kind of stuff.
Michael would have asked this enemy of civilization to defend his positions. He probably would have, as I should have, asked what makes Israel an "apartheid state". I've noticed that once these dopes start trying to defend their inaccurate and illogical claims, they're easy to refute. They go from one ridiculous claim to another as each one gets shot down, or they try to make you feel like you don't know the facts. Or, like one woman I argued with a while back, they go off on a tirade of non-sequiters. This particular woman started yelling about how we in the U.S. live in a fascist state. Since they're usually only familiar with their own talking points, they have to assert new points as each one gets shot down, or try to change the discussion altogether.
Eventually (usually) they get to the point where they either call you names, agree to disagree, or walk away. This guy ended up walking away as I was able to shatter his claims, but I could have done it more easily and with more panache, had I required him to defend his position. Plus, it would have taken him longer to understand that I was working against him and may have thrown him off once he realized that he was talking to someone hostile to his view of a Jew-free Middle East.
I found another person to argue with, but my wife was starting to walk off, so I went to join her. I merely let the woman who was trying to hand me a flyer know that I was a supporter of Israel. I know I didn't convince anyone of anything that day, but I did let them know that there are those of us battling their neo-fascist agenda.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Interesting ArticlesWhile digging around the Internet for the previous post, I stumbled upon two articles at The Religion of Peace. Here is a disturbing piece on the popularity of kiddie porn in Pakistan.
Google, the world’s most popular Internet search engine, has found in a survey that mostly Muslim states seek access to sex-related websites and Pakistan tops the list. Google found that of the top 10 countries - searching for sex-related sites - six were Muslim, with Pakistan on the top. The other Muslim countries are Egypt at number 2, Iran at 4, Morocco at 5, Saudi Arabia at 7 and Turkey at 8. Non-Muslim states are Vietnam at 3, India at 6, Philippines at 9 and Poland at 10.and
Just in case anyone argues that the data could refer to innocent searches made by developmental psychology students, Google Trends shows that when the term “child f***ing” is examined, across all years from 2004 until now, the highest amount of searches for this term came from Pakistan. Similarly, of all global Google searches for “naked child” from 2004 till now, Pakistan still tops the list. Google Trends reveals that of all global Google searches, from 2006 to 2010, for the term “child sex video” Pakistan was second in the world, only being outdone by Bangladesh (a country that was once officially part of Pakistan).If you insist on reading the whole article, feel free, but be warned, it gets more disturbing.
Our second article should be a firm reminder to those of us who only associate Islam with terrorism. Islam is also clearly associated with obsessive repression of any human activity that can be seen as enjoyable by any living human being. I will try not to forget that when discussing Islam from now on.
Hizbul Islam had previously banned all forms of entertainment considered un-Islamic under a strict interpretation of shariah law. There was to be no video gaming or watching sports in public. They shuttered movie theatres that showed major sporting events to residents, most of whom are too poor to own their own televisions, let alone a satellite dish that permits them to get around Hizbul Islam's control of local broadcast television.Like any fascist dictatorial system, the Islamists fear anyone going "off message" and engaging in any activity that would detract from total obedience to the official tyrant in charge. They have to have total control of the populace right down to people's own thoughts. But like fascist dictators, they are also complete hypocrites.
These extremists also have ordered aid agencies out of the regions of Somalia they control. Their official rationale was that the aid groups were raising millions from around the world without providing Somalis with any benefits. The charitable agencies believe, though, that what Hizbul Islam truly feared was ordinary Somalis seeing the kindness of the mostly Western relief workers and ceasing to believe the anti-Western propaganda their political masters spew.
In the July/August issue of The Atlantic, David Byman, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institute, and Christine Fair, an assistant professor in peace and security studies at Georgetown University, say that porn is amongst the most common content on laptops seized from al Qaeda operatives and other extremists. U.S. officials claim also to have video of would-be terrorists having it on with barnyard animals and one another.Now, one could say that people (I don't want to say "men", that would be stereotyping, wouldn't it?) of all religions view pornography and even some who condemn its insidious nature are drawn to it and thus, are hypocrites. But then, one must ask, as one must always ask when pointing out the pathologies of Islam, how many members of other religions are murdering their followers for watching a soccer game, and and how many are telling their members how long their beards must be to avoid punishment?
Yep, none. That's right. Only among the "pure" Islamic societies is this sort of barbarism tolerated by those who fancy themselves as "progressive."
Getting It and Not Getting ItI meant to post this many weeks ago. I meant to do a lot of things weeks ago, but as we all know, sometimes life has other plans. Nothing major happened, except for my wife's appendectomy a week and a half ago, but just a lot of little things. So while the articles I'm referring to are a bit dated, they're still valuable because they still speak for certain portions of our population and distill their thought processes.
Leonard Pitts is an obviously intelligent writer who, along with millions of others in the Western world, find myriad ways to avoid admitting the truth. You know the truth I speak of. It has to do with Islam and terrorism, that unavoidable connection between the two. The connection that can't be admitted if one is a member of the "What, me islamophobe?" community. Here is Pitts' most recent obfuscation.
Even after Oct. 1, 1910, when a bomb destroyed the Los Angeles Times building and killed 20 men.
And Nov. 24, 1917, when 10 people died in the bombing of a police station in Milwaukee.
And Sept. 16, 1920, when 38 people lost their lives in a bombing on Wall Street.
And May 18, 1927, when 45 people, most of them children, died in a school bombing in Bath Township, Mich.
And Sept. 15, 1963, when four little girls died in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham.
And Feb. 26, 1993, when a bomb in a basement of the World Trade Center left six people dead.
And April 19, 1995 when a truck bomb destroyed a federal building in Oklahoma City, claiming 168 lives.
And Sept. 11, 2001, when nearly 3,000 people were killed by hijackers who used captured jetliners as guided missiles.
Read more: here.
But notice how far back in time Pitts has to travel in order to find his non-Islamic terrorist (or should I say "extremist", or "militant", or "activist"?) attacks. He is unwilling to face the fact that since 9/11, there have been over 15,000 terrorist attacks by "a tiny minority" of members of the Religion of Peace. Does it make a person "islamophobic" to keep track of these attacks? Or even to notice them and point them out? Apparently to Pitts, it does. And it also destroys the moral equivalency argument that so many on the left who don't want to slight the Muslim community for excusing or ignoring the terrorists in their midst.
On the other hand, there's Mark Steyn. He is brave enough to even face Obama.
Like a lot of guys who’ve been told they’re brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy, and doesn’t always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl, upon signing the “Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act.”But then, Obama gets it about as well as Pitts does. The tragedy of Obama not getting it is that he is the leader of the free world.
Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002. That’s how I’d put it.
This is what the president of the United States said: “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”
Now Obama’s off the prompter, when his silver-tongued rhetoric invariably turns to sludge. But he’s talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceased’s family is standing all around him. And, even for a busy president, it’s the work of moments to come up with a sentence that would be respectful, moving, and true. Indeed, for Obama, it’s the work of seconds, because he has a taxpayer-funded staff sitting around all day with nothing to do but provide him with that sentence.
Instead, he delivered the one above. Which, in its clumsiness and insipidness, is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: “The loss of Daniel Pearl.” He wasn’t “lost.” He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his “loss” merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Obama can muster none.
Of course, Steyn has paid for being politically incorrect, for pointing out that, not only is the emperor wearing no clothes, but the terrorists are wearing Islamic garb. He was sued by a Canadian Muslim organization and brought up on charges by the misnamed Canadian Human Rights Commission. That's what you get when you refuse to submit, and when you refuse to exchange the truth for lies and then believe the lies and condemn the truth.
But those are the people we need to get us through these troubled times . . . and into the next troubled times.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Missionaries arrested at Arab Festival in DearbornNope, I'm not going to comment on this. There is no need.
Four Christian missionaries trying to convert Muslims were arrested and jailed Friday for disorderly conduct at an Arab festival in Dearborn, police said.You should read the whole article. You should also go to the website.
"We did make four arrests for disorderly conduct," Dearborn Police Chief Ron Haddad said Saturday. "They did cause a stir."
Nabeel Qureshi of Virginia and David Wood of New York, both with a Christian group called Acts 17 Apologetics, were arrested with two others after they were said to be causing disruptive behavior, police said.
The four, who were at the Dearborn Arab International Festival, were later released on bail.
Qureshi described the arrest on the Acts 17 blog at www.answeringmuslims.com.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Just for LaughsYou may have already seen these as an email.
Senior Bumper Stickers, etc.
Someone had to remind me, so I'm reminding you too. Don't laugh.....it is all true.
Perks of reaching 50 or being over 60 and heading towards 70!
1. Kidnappers are not very interested in you.
2. In a hostage situation you are likely to be released first.
3. No one expects you to run--anywhere.
4. People call at 9 pm and ask, did I wake you?
5. People no longer view you as a hypochondriac.
6. There is nothing left to learn the hard way.
7. Things you buy now won't wear out.
8. You can eat supper at 4 pm.
9. You can live without sex but not your glasses.
10. You get into heated arguments about pension plans.
11. You no longer think of speed limits as a challenge.
12. You quit trying to hold your stomach in no matter who walks into the room.
13. You sing along with elevator music.
14. Your eyes won't get much worse.
15 . Your investment in health insurance is finally beginning to pay off.
16. Your joints are more accurate meteorologists than the national weather service.
17. Your secrets are safe with your friends because they can't remember them either.
18. Your supply of brain cells is finally down to manageable size.
19. You can't remember who sent you this list.
And you notice these are all in Big Print for your convenience.
Forward this to everyone you can remember.
And Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night.
The Three TerrorsYoutube pulled the "We Con the World" video. Must not upset those jihadists, you know. That would be islamophobic. So watch this one and pass it one before it too gets censored by Youtube.
Monday, June 14, 2010
School of Hard KnocksSome of us need to be hit in the head before we adjust our world view so that's in more in line with reality. Others need a good swift kick in the pants. Then there are those who need who, unfortunately need to have their reality rearranged by having their family jewels attacked. Yes, I'm speaking of the rabbi who conducted that recent ill-fated interview with the aged anti-Semitic Helen Thomas.
During an interview on CNN’s Reliable Sources on Sunday, Rabbi David Nesenoff, known for exposing Helen Thomas’s anti-Semitic views, informed viewers that, up until now, he has considered himself to be a liberal Democrat – who even opposed the Iraq War and supported Barack Obama – but now asserts that "I have to really reevaluate liberal and conservative and really find out where I stand because I think I've been a little blind."A little blind?
As Nesenoff recounted that he had previously agreed with Thomas in her opposition to the war in Iraq, and her challenging of President Bush on the matter, he now sees himself as unknowingly being allied with people who think that "Israel and the Jewish people don't have a connection." Before being interrupted by host Howard Kurtz, Nesenoff began to explain his evolution of thought:He is one of the reasons that when it comes to backing Israel, I trust conservative evangelical Christians more than I trust liberal Jews, even liberal Jewish rabbis. It's not so much that his eyes have been opened, but he's been forced to reevaluate his willful blindness to the anti-Israel agenda.
I have to wonder if the rabbi is part of an interfaith group that is involved in outreach to local mosques. After all, the liberal belief in dialogue with "the other" is a core orthodox (liberal) belief. If so, he would do well to read and reread this article.
Jewish residents in Malmo are furious after the Swedish town's mayor, Ilmar Reepalu, equated Zionism to anti-Semitism in an interview published on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.He (and you) need to read the whole thing, and then read some more about the current wave of unapologetic anti-Semitism sweeping Europe. Never again? Don't you believe it. It will happen again in Europe. It's already started.
During the interview with Skanska Dagbladet newspaper, Reepalu was asked whether he considered a public condemnation of anti-Semitism in Malmo. The mayor responded that "Malmo does not accept anti-Semitism and does not accept Zionism," charging that both adopt extreme positions towards certain groups.
Reepalu added that local Jews bear some responsibility for the attitude towards them, noting that "they have the possibility to affect the way they are seen by society." The mayor then urged Malmo's Jewish community to "distance itself" from Israeli attacks on Gaza's civilian population.
"Instead, the community chose to hold a pro-Israel demonstration," he said, adding that such move "may convey the wrong message to others."
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Helen ThomasYou really have go beyond the pale to get the mainstream media to notice anti-Semitism these days, since, as we're told, those Jews are always playing the anti-Semitism card. And of course, if you aren't as deferential to Israel as the Israel Lobby wants you to be, well then, the Jew-controlled media bounces your butt out the door. Just ask Glen Greenwald and his fellow hate monkeys. Others noticed Helen Thomas' tendencies years ago.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Call Me IslamophobeYes, I do agree with the fellow in the photo.
And I would laugh harder at this cartoon if it weren't so true . . . and if 78% of American Jews hadn't helped create this suicidal situation.
Update: I forgot to mention that the above photograph was liberated from The People's Cube.
Monday, June 07, 2010
Random Takes on IsraelOh, those poor, poor Gazans! Or at least that's the story we're told.
But in reality,
* While prominent Western media continue to lead their viewers and readers astray with accounts of a non-existent “mass humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza, fancy restaurants (video below) and an Olympic-size swimming pool open thereCheck this out for the promised videos and photos.
* Most Israeli towns don’t have Olympic-size swimming pools
* Many Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live a middle class (and in some cases an upper class) lifestyle that Western journalists refuse to report on because it doesn’t fit with the simplistic story they were sent to write
* If you drop into the Roots Club in Gaza, according to the Lonely Planet guidebook, you can “dine on steak au poivre and chicken cordon bleu” (video, photos below)
And while this video was done for laughs, (make sure you watch the song parody that begins about half way through) there is truth in it. That's what makes good satire.
And finally, here is a Democrat I would vote for if I lived in his district.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) — one of Israel's staunchest defenders in Congress — wants Americans who were aboard the Gaza flotilla ships prosecuted.
On a conference call organized by The Israel Project on Friday, Sherman said that any U.S. citizen aboard the ship should be considered aiding Hamas, an Islamic extremist organization that controls Gaza. The U.S. State Department considers Hamas a foreign terrorist organization.
The online foreign policy publication Lobelog reported:
On a press call hosted by a pro-Israel organization, Rep. Brad Sherman, Democrat of California, told reporters that he intends seek the prosecution of any U.S. citizens who were aboard or involved with the Freedom Flotilla.
“The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 [PDF] makes it absolutely illegal for any American to give food, money, school supplies, paper clips, concrete or weapons to Hamas or any of its officials,” Sherman said on the Israel Project call, conflating Hamas and Gaza’s civilian population. “And so I will be asking the Attorney General to prosecute any American involved in what was clearly an effort to give items of value to a terrorist organization.”
Sherman also said that he plans on working with the Department of Homeland Security to make sure that any non-U.S. citizen involved with or aboard the Flotilla are excluded from entering the U.S.
The one from my district has been in Congress much too long and I have to wonder if he is supporting this stance.
My wife and I were in New York City over the weekend. We walked past an anti-Israel demonstration in Union Square. I was trying to be a good husband and walk right past these Hamas-supporting tools. My wife was a better wife than I was a husband as she let me stop and argue with them for a bit. I didn't press it. I cut my confrontations much shorter than I wanted to. But I appreciate the fact that she let me release some of my anger at these morally deluded fools who have no idea what freedom is, what it isn't, and what we need to do to keep it.