It is time for the Israelis to complete the job. These incremental strikes and equivocations must come to an end. They need to complete the destruction of the entire Palestinian infrastructure (starting) in Gaza and continuing to wherever they need to go. The time is now, before the new Left-wing administration takes over in Washington.
Gaza, as it is now, is just an artifact: unsustainable as an entity, with no positive reason for its existence. the ideal would be to significantly depopulate it. The best outcome is if the population can be made to scatter; to Egypt first and thence to wherever they can go to be absorbed. By Europeans' own accounts, they would make wonderful citizens of Western Europe, whose "intelligentsia" seem to consider the Palestinians, as whole, to be the noblest creatures on earth. For Europe, then, the Palestinians should certainly be preferable to the human debris pouring over from North Africa to populate a rapidly islamizing Europe. At a minimum, Europe should look upon the Palestinians as a replacement population for the Jews that Europeans have murdered over the centuries.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
How Long Are We Going To Put Up With This?
How many more attacks?
How much more savagery?
How many more outrages will take before the civilized world is going to say ENOUGH?
When are the "respectable" people in the world going to say "we've had enough of Islam and its savage followers"? Have Liberals in the West not yet had enough of "engagement" and "dialogue"" When will they finally have the intellectual honesty to say "we will not put up with these people living amongst us, anymore?"
When are Jewish leaders in the US going to realize that (no matter what they do to try to appease the adherents of this barbaric and mad religion) Jews anywhere in the world are never going to be safe as long as any Muslims are allowed to venture freely about? India has maybe eight Jews in the whole country of one billion people, yet these maniacs sought them out for special attention. All the effort that we've wasted on "interfaith dialogue" and "engagement" and trying to placate these people - not to mention supporting their efforts to enter and stay in this country - is a prescription for our destruction.
Sadly, with the election of the exotic Messiah as president, even the United States will drop out of the fight against the real menace to our country and its interests everywhere: not some sub-species called "terrorists" but Islam itself and all the "believers".
Everything that Bush and Chaney tried to do to keep Muslims under some control - now rapidly unraveling under Liberal assault in the courts and for public opinion - is fully justified. Bush's only fault was that he was not harsh enough; not relentless enough. Also, he kept mouthing those inanities about Islam being a "religion of peace" and that not all Muslims are retrograde cretins in thrall to a barbaric religion (he didn't quite say it like that!) And all that hand-holding with the dirty Saudis!! Anything for oil! The most important thing he did was to harass Muslims who were here illegally into leaving this country and to make it hard for more Muslims to come in. We can be sure that our crypto-Muslim president-elect (how galling that is!) will do everything to make Muslims feel even more welcome in this country than they already do. The floodgates will be open wide from now on. And Jewish organizations will be his willing accomplices - marching happily to their demise in the glorious causes of "diversity and inclusiveness".
While we can't wipe all Muslims of the face of the earth (just think of the "Environmental Impact Statement" we'd have to write!) we can - and must - isolate them in their own countries and treat with them at arms length to the extent we need to (oil for Las Vegas prostitutes?) until they reform themselves and their hateful religion - in maybe a couple of hundred years.
Most important: Keep them the hell away from us!
How much more savagery?
How many more outrages will take before the civilized world is going to say ENOUGH?
When are the "respectable" people in the world going to say "we've had enough of Islam and its savage followers"? Have Liberals in the West not yet had enough of "engagement" and "dialogue"" When will they finally have the intellectual honesty to say "we will not put up with these people living amongst us, anymore?"
When are Jewish leaders in the US going to realize that (no matter what they do to try to appease the adherents of this barbaric and mad religion) Jews anywhere in the world are never going to be safe as long as any Muslims are allowed to venture freely about? India has maybe eight Jews in the whole country of one billion people, yet these maniacs sought them out for special attention. All the effort that we've wasted on "interfaith dialogue" and "engagement" and trying to placate these people - not to mention supporting their efforts to enter and stay in this country - is a prescription for our destruction.
Sadly, with the election of the exotic Messiah as president, even the United States will drop out of the fight against the real menace to our country and its interests everywhere: not some sub-species called "terrorists" but Islam itself and all the "believers".
Everything that Bush and Chaney tried to do to keep Muslims under some control - now rapidly unraveling under Liberal assault in the courts and for public opinion - is fully justified. Bush's only fault was that he was not harsh enough; not relentless enough. Also, he kept mouthing those inanities about Islam being a "religion of peace" and that not all Muslims are retrograde cretins in thrall to a barbaric religion (he didn't quite say it like that!) And all that hand-holding with the dirty Saudis!! Anything for oil! The most important thing he did was to harass Muslims who were here illegally into leaving this country and to make it hard for more Muslims to come in. We can be sure that our crypto-Muslim president-elect (how galling that is!) will do everything to make Muslims feel even more welcome in this country than they already do. The floodgates will be open wide from now on. And Jewish organizations will be his willing accomplices - marching happily to their demise in the glorious causes of "diversity and inclusiveness".
While we can't wipe all Muslims of the face of the earth (just think of the "Environmental Impact Statement" we'd have to write!) we can - and must - isolate them in their own countries and treat with them at arms length to the extent we need to (oil for Las Vegas prostitutes?) until they reform themselves and their hateful religion - in maybe a couple of hundred years.
Most important: Keep them the hell away from us!
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Abeed Al-Beit
How delicious! How Ironic!
In his latest screed, Ayman al-Zawahri welcomed the Black Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, to the world stage by calling him one of the “abeed al-beit”. This was charitably (and inoffensively) translated by the American news media as “house Negro”. In fact, it is literally translated as “house slave”. Although al-Zawahri went on to praise “honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, the use of “abd” (singular) and “abeed” (plural) is the real indicator of how Arabs think of (and usually treat) black Africans – as nothing better than slaves. Although Black Muslims in America try to hide the contempt of Arabs and other Muslims towards them by translating “abd” as “servant” (as in Abdullah – “the servant of Allah”), its literal meaning is “slave”. Muslims would accept being “Abdullah”, the slave of Allah (or one of his myriad synonyms), they would not use it for an Arab (or other non-African Muslim) to mean servant. In fact, it is the colloquial Arabic word for a black man. To Arabs, black Africans were, are and will forever be slaves.
It is a true indication of the ignorance of black Americans who try to become “authentic” (“Africanized”) by adopting Islam as their “native” religion. They conveniently forget - with the connivance of revisionist historian “intellectuals” (black and white) - that it was mostly Muslim Arabs (and their African slaves) who were the biggest slave traders in Africa. The Arabs were the ones who would buy or capture blacks in the African interior and take them in chains to the coastal slave trading centers, and sell them to Europeans for transport to the Americas. In fact it is forbidden for a Muslim to treat another Muslim as a slave. In other words, if the Africans sold into slavery had been originally Muslim (as some of the "Afro-centric" gibberish would have us believe), Arab traders (true Muslims, all) would have been prohibited from selling them to the Europeans.
This ignorance by blacks in America is so pervasive – and their hatred of white Americans is so virulent - that (according to the New York Times) “ …a Pew Research Center poll last year showing that African-American Muslims were the subset of American Muslims least hostile to Al Qaeda. The poll showed that 63 percent of foreign-born Muslims in this country had a “very unfavorable” view of Al Qaeda, compared with 36 percent of African-American Muslims.”
There must be something, after all, to all the psychological babble about symbiotic relationships between oppressor and oppressed - and master and slave.
And, of course, by our “benign neglect” of the increasing Muslim population in this country - by immigration, conversion and birth – we are setting ourselves up for ever increasing hatred, terror and eventual conquest from within. But hey… any disastrous consequence is acceptable in the service of “tolerance” and “diversity”.
In his latest screed, Ayman al-Zawahri welcomed the Black Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, to the world stage by calling him one of the “abeed al-beit”. This was charitably (and inoffensively) translated by the American news media as “house Negro”. In fact, it is literally translated as “house slave”. Although al-Zawahri went on to praise “honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, the use of “abd” (singular) and “abeed” (plural) is the real indicator of how Arabs think of (and usually treat) black Africans – as nothing better than slaves. Although Black Muslims in America try to hide the contempt of Arabs and other Muslims towards them by translating “abd” as “servant” (as in Abdullah – “the servant of Allah”), its literal meaning is “slave”. Muslims would accept being “Abdullah”, the slave of Allah (or one of his myriad synonyms), they would not use it for an Arab (or other non-African Muslim) to mean servant. In fact, it is the colloquial Arabic word for a black man. To Arabs, black Africans were, are and will forever be slaves.
It is a true indication of the ignorance of black Americans who try to become “authentic” (“Africanized”) by adopting Islam as their “native” religion. They conveniently forget - with the connivance of revisionist historian “intellectuals” (black and white) - that it was mostly Muslim Arabs (and their African slaves) who were the biggest slave traders in Africa. The Arabs were the ones who would buy or capture blacks in the African interior and take them in chains to the coastal slave trading centers, and sell them to Europeans for transport to the Americas. In fact it is forbidden for a Muslim to treat another Muslim as a slave. In other words, if the Africans sold into slavery had been originally Muslim (as some of the "Afro-centric" gibberish would have us believe), Arab traders (true Muslims, all) would have been prohibited from selling them to the Europeans.
This ignorance by blacks in America is so pervasive – and their hatred of white Americans is so virulent - that (according to the New York Times) “ …a Pew Research Center poll last year showing that African-American Muslims were the subset of American Muslims least hostile to Al Qaeda. The poll showed that 63 percent of foreign-born Muslims in this country had a “very unfavorable” view of Al Qaeda, compared with 36 percent of African-American Muslims.”
There must be something, after all, to all the psychological babble about symbiotic relationships between oppressor and oppressed - and master and slave.
And, of course, by our “benign neglect” of the increasing Muslim population in this country - by immigration, conversion and birth – we are setting ourselves up for ever increasing hatred, terror and eventual conquest from within. But hey… any disastrous consequence is acceptable in the service of “tolerance” and “diversity”.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Alright, you won. Now shut up, already.
As bad and depressing as Obama's election victory is for America, it is even more infuriating in that it has unleashed the whole cacophony of Liberal gloating that has been bottled up since the 2000 election. Between magnanimously congratulating the American electorate for "embracing" diversity and multiculturalism (never mind that the public would have voted for a yellow dog - probably with larger margins - if he was running as a Democrat this year); congratulating themselves (over and over again) for their brilliance and perspicacity for backing and promoting the Black Messiah into the presidency and basking in the glow of their counterparts in Europe and the 3rd world (Muslims only cheering quietly, though - for now!), the Liberals in the entertainment world and so-called news commentators have continued the vicious personal attacks on McCain, Bush and, most especially, Sarah Palin. In her case it seems like, as with frightened villagers in old horror movies, they need to drive a stake through her heart and to destroy any semblance of credibility she can still muster so that she cannot rise up again and haunt their nightmares about a resurgent real ("red") America.
But, as supercilious "elites" have done again and again (remember the Clinton/Gore victory?), they will over-play their hand and their world will come crashing down on them again. That is America's only hope now.
Naturally, these malefactors of the Left will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. They were burned in 2000 when the "wrong" man won and they are determined never to let it happen again. They will lie and smear; doctor the facts; malign and insult to achieve their ends, "by any means necessary". Any criticism of Obama will be denounced as that greatest of high crimes: Racism. The American public are already being fed daily doses of new accounts of "hate" (verbal or symbolic) being expressed against Obama and people associated with him. The viciousness towards conservatives will be kept up and drilled into us continuously. There is no chance that "comedians" like Maher, Stewart, Colbert and Al Franken (after he loses in Minnesota) will turn their "sharp wit" on the Democrats; for them, the first priority will always be to protect the "progressive" cause. So the poor, depleted, Republicans will continue to be derided, smeared and denigrated - and, of course, blamed for anything that goes wrong over the next four years.
One has to wonder if the Liberals will ever run out of Palin material. As long as she is on the political stage, she will continue to draw their attention. They want to make sure that she is never in a position again to give them a scare like she did immediately after her nomination - before they could gather themselves and get their vultures to swoop down on her, investigating and fabricating ("filling in the background") until they got the picture of her that they needed into the American people's mind, and neutralized her as a positive force in McCain's campaign. We have learned more about her life and background (every little nuance!) in two months than we have learned about Obama in two years. Amazingly, many more reporters have visited Wassalia (even the mighty Maureen Dowd) in the last two months than have bothered to visit places associated with Obama (Kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii, KANSAS!) in all his stint in the national spotlight. We probably know more about her educational background and achievements (and lack thereof) than we know about his - and she was only running for VICE President, someone who MIGHT become president.
All one can say is, "how outrageous! Some day the dam protecting the background information about the Messiah will be breached - the Liberal protectors will be scrambling to stem the deluge and preserve the image. Let us hope that the American public will wake up to the hoax that has been perpetrated on them and will want to take their revenge "by any means necessary".
But, as supercilious "elites" have done again and again (remember the Clinton/Gore victory?), they will over-play their hand and their world will come crashing down on them again. That is America's only hope now.
Naturally, these malefactors of the Left will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. They were burned in 2000 when the "wrong" man won and they are determined never to let it happen again. They will lie and smear; doctor the facts; malign and insult to achieve their ends, "by any means necessary". Any criticism of Obama will be denounced as that greatest of high crimes: Racism. The American public are already being fed daily doses of new accounts of "hate" (verbal or symbolic) being expressed against Obama and people associated with him. The viciousness towards conservatives will be kept up and drilled into us continuously. There is no chance that "comedians" like Maher, Stewart, Colbert and Al Franken (after he loses in Minnesota) will turn their "sharp wit" on the Democrats; for them, the first priority will always be to protect the "progressive" cause. So the poor, depleted, Republicans will continue to be derided, smeared and denigrated - and, of course, blamed for anything that goes wrong over the next four years.
One has to wonder if the Liberals will ever run out of Palin material. As long as she is on the political stage, she will continue to draw their attention. They want to make sure that she is never in a position again to give them a scare like she did immediately after her nomination - before they could gather themselves and get their vultures to swoop down on her, investigating and fabricating ("filling in the background") until they got the picture of her that they needed into the American people's mind, and neutralized her as a positive force in McCain's campaign. We have learned more about her life and background (every little nuance!) in two months than we have learned about Obama in two years. Amazingly, many more reporters have visited Wassalia (even the mighty Maureen Dowd) in the last two months than have bothered to visit places associated with Obama (Kenya, Indonesia, Hawaii, KANSAS!) in all his stint in the national spotlight. We probably know more about her educational background and achievements (and lack thereof) than we know about his - and she was only running for VICE President, someone who MIGHT become president.
All one can say is, "how outrageous! Some day the dam protecting the background information about the Messiah will be breached - the Liberal protectors will be scrambling to stem the deluge and preserve the image. Let us hope that the American public will wake up to the hoax that has been perpetrated on them and will want to take their revenge "by any means necessary".
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Guess Who Won?
Article in today's New York Times, tells it all: "Jihadi Leader Says Radicals Share Obama Victory". Well Duhhh!
Despite all the denials by the mainstream (read "Liberal"!) media, the victory by Obama can only give aid and comfort to our enemies (YES, Muslims everywhere are our enemies!). The euphoria is palpable (see also the blog samples on today's Op-Ed page).
Despite the Liberal smears by the media that Al Qaida had endorsed McCain (now we are listening to the disinformation from these savages before we vote!), a victory by Obama could never have been anything but a greater triumph for our enemies than even the victory by José Luis Rodríguez-Zapatero and the subsequent Spanish withdrawal from Iraq. Even the stupidest people (Muslims and their Liberal apologists) should be able to draw the linear conclusion of action and reaction: in the case of Spain, bombing; election; withdrawal. And, in the case of the US, casualties in battle and by terrorism; "peace advocates"; rhetoric of withdrawal and "moral outrage"; election victory by Obama.
Pathetically, the Times article goes on to discuss in great detail how this murderous bastard, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, is hinting at "offering" us dialogue; no doubt because he knows what a great talker our exotic messiah is. The article also assesses (with hopeful anticipation, no doubt) whether Osama (not Obama; hard to tell them apart) will condescend to offer us "dialogue", also. Oh joy! What they want to talk about is how we can withdraw and leave the Middle East to their tender mercies. And then they will live with us in peace - no doubt, until the next round of "negotiations", where they will insist on mass conversion by the West to Islam. To the Times reporter, these seem to be eminently reasonable grounds for discussion.
After all, the Anointed One has said he is willing to negotiate with anyone, about anything, at any time, anywhere (or something to the effect). If Al Qaida is as easy to bamboozle as the American electorate, it should be a piece of cake for us to surrender (sorry, withdraw), with honor.
Despite all the denials by the mainstream (read "Liberal"!) media, the victory by Obama can only give aid and comfort to our enemies (YES, Muslims everywhere are our enemies!). The euphoria is palpable (see also the blog samples on today's Op-Ed page).
Despite the Liberal smears by the media that Al Qaida had endorsed McCain (now we are listening to the disinformation from these savages before we vote!), a victory by Obama could never have been anything but a greater triumph for our enemies than even the victory by José Luis Rodríguez-Zapatero and the subsequent Spanish withdrawal from Iraq. Even the stupidest people (Muslims and their Liberal apologists) should be able to draw the linear conclusion of action and reaction: in the case of Spain, bombing; election; withdrawal. And, in the case of the US, casualties in battle and by terrorism; "peace advocates"; rhetoric of withdrawal and "moral outrage"; election victory by Obama.
Pathetically, the Times article goes on to discuss in great detail how this murderous bastard, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, is hinting at "offering" us dialogue; no doubt because he knows what a great talker our exotic messiah is. The article also assesses (with hopeful anticipation, no doubt) whether Osama (not Obama; hard to tell them apart) will condescend to offer us "dialogue", also. Oh joy! What they want to talk about is how we can withdraw and leave the Middle East to their tender mercies. And then they will live with us in peace - no doubt, until the next round of "negotiations", where they will insist on mass conversion by the West to Islam. To the Times reporter, these seem to be eminently reasonable grounds for discussion.
After all, the Anointed One has said he is willing to negotiate with anyone, about anything, at any time, anywhere (or something to the effect). If Al Qaida is as easy to bamboozle as the American electorate, it should be a piece of cake for us to surrender (sorry, withdraw), with honor.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
You Lost!
To the real Americans,
You lost last night. You were bamboozled and panicked by the Liberals into voting for their bogus economic solutions so that they can elect their Exotic Messiah and his Democratic Party stooges. Even though Obama still lost the majority of the White vote, enough of you true Americans were persuaded to join with the America-hating White Liberals and the "other" to give him the presidency.
Your primacy in America came to an end last night, long before this country officially becomes a "majority minority" country some time in the next 40-50 years - or even sooner.
Now that the Democrats are in complete control of the government, you can be sure that the floodgates will be opened wide and you will be inundated in the tide of 3rd world immigrants - no matter what you want or what is truly in America's best interest. The Liberal "multicultural enterprise" will proceed at full speed, unchecked.
It is not coincidental that Hispanics and other 3rd world immigrant groups vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. The implied bargain was struck back in the 60's, under LBJ, and will come into full bloom now: More 3rd world immigration in return for more votes for the Democrats. the White Liberals will wallow in facile (and cynical) righteousness, while you become more and more marginalized; irrelevant in the country you founded, established, populated and built up into the greatest power in the world.
And who will benefit the most, and most immediately? Why Muslims, of course. Any Muslim that can remotely claim to have been investigated, "profiled", arrested or (heaven forbid!) made to leave the country - because they were here illegally! - by the Bush Administration (doing its duty to protect America) will now be lining up for redress and to collect hefty damages as compensation for their "injury". And will the Obama administration be willing to deny them? Not a chance! After-all that was one of his main attraction for the Liberals, at home and abroad: He is going to make the Muslims of the world love us, again. After 911, the Bush Administration energetically curbed the Muslim hordes from entering this country by fair means or foul and it's a good thing that they did. Now those barriers will be eliminated and you will be washed away. Good luck to you all. Through your nobility of spirit you have ensured your own demise.
Who knows? maybe Obama'll even revert back to the religion of his father and won't have to be only a crypto-Muslim anymore. No need for Taqiyya (the Muslim doctrine that sanctions concealing or disguising one's beliefs at a time of imminent danger) any more, now. Then the Muslims of the world will really love you - and crush you in their deadly embrace.
So now, cling ever tighter to your guns and your religion....and God bless and protect the REAL AMERICA!
You lost last night. You were bamboozled and panicked by the Liberals into voting for their bogus economic solutions so that they can elect their Exotic Messiah and his Democratic Party stooges. Even though Obama still lost the majority of the White vote, enough of you true Americans were persuaded to join with the America-hating White Liberals and the "other" to give him the presidency.
Your primacy in America came to an end last night, long before this country officially becomes a "majority minority" country some time in the next 40-50 years - or even sooner.
Now that the Democrats are in complete control of the government, you can be sure that the floodgates will be opened wide and you will be inundated in the tide of 3rd world immigrants - no matter what you want or what is truly in America's best interest. The Liberal "multicultural enterprise" will proceed at full speed, unchecked.
It is not coincidental that Hispanics and other 3rd world immigrant groups vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats. The implied bargain was struck back in the 60's, under LBJ, and will come into full bloom now: More 3rd world immigration in return for more votes for the Democrats. the White Liberals will wallow in facile (and cynical) righteousness, while you become more and more marginalized; irrelevant in the country you founded, established, populated and built up into the greatest power in the world.
And who will benefit the most, and most immediately? Why Muslims, of course. Any Muslim that can remotely claim to have been investigated, "profiled", arrested or (heaven forbid!) made to leave the country - because they were here illegally! - by the Bush Administration (doing its duty to protect America) will now be lining up for redress and to collect hefty damages as compensation for their "injury". And will the Obama administration be willing to deny them? Not a chance! After-all that was one of his main attraction for the Liberals, at home and abroad: He is going to make the Muslims of the world love us, again. After 911, the Bush Administration energetically curbed the Muslim hordes from entering this country by fair means or foul and it's a good thing that they did. Now those barriers will be eliminated and you will be washed away. Good luck to you all. Through your nobility of spirit you have ensured your own demise.
Who knows? maybe Obama'll even revert back to the religion of his father and won't have to be only a crypto-Muslim anymore. No need for Taqiyya (the Muslim doctrine that sanctions concealing or disguising one's beliefs at a time of imminent danger) any more, now. Then the Muslims of the world will really love you - and crush you in their deadly embrace.
So now, cling ever tighter to your guns and your religion....and God bless and protect the REAL AMERICA!
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Thou hast it now
To the Liberal "elites"
To quote Shakespeare, "Thou hast it now.......... and, I fear,
Thou play'dst most foully for't." You have all the reins of government now. You demonized and disparaged Bush for eight years and lied about McCain; you protected Obama - no nasty "background" pieces about him, his family roots, his beliefs and ideology. And you achieved the "progressive" victory you sought.
Now you will spend the next four years defending him and the Democrats. You have acted shamelessly and will lead this country further down the path of un-Americanization. We will become even more the multi-cultural haven for the backward and the ignorant of the world. The Muslim tide will become a flood and you will cheer our "diversity" until we are no longer the last best hope of Western civilization - YES CIVILIZATION.
You bamboozled the American people and played on their temporary economic distress to achieve you "cultural" goals. What you accused the Republicans of doing - emphasizing "cultural" issues to implement "regressive" economic benefit for the rich - you did in reverse: you frightened REAL Americans into supporting you, with economic promises, to gain the control you wanted to implement your social agenda.
Sadly, with the implementation of your social and demographic agenda (the multi-cultural Nirvana) it will make it impossible for REAL Americans to regain their country when they finally wake up to your plans. They will be out-voted and marginalized as you increase the 3rd world population of this country. The great fear is that, in desperation, White Americans will turn to demagogues to try to regain their power back, with disastrous consequences for us all.
You have succeeded in your plan to "Europeanize" this country- we too will be afraid of our own growing "minorities" and have to live in fear - or revolt!
Our only immediate hope now is - BIDEN '09!
To quote Shakespeare, "Thou hast it now.......... and, I fear,
Thou play'dst most foully for't." You have all the reins of government now. You demonized and disparaged Bush for eight years and lied about McCain; you protected Obama - no nasty "background" pieces about him, his family roots, his beliefs and ideology. And you achieved the "progressive" victory you sought.
Now you will spend the next four years defending him and the Democrats. You have acted shamelessly and will lead this country further down the path of un-Americanization. We will become even more the multi-cultural haven for the backward and the ignorant of the world. The Muslim tide will become a flood and you will cheer our "diversity" until we are no longer the last best hope of Western civilization - YES CIVILIZATION.
You bamboozled the American people and played on their temporary economic distress to achieve you "cultural" goals. What you accused the Republicans of doing - emphasizing "cultural" issues to implement "regressive" economic benefit for the rich - you did in reverse: you frightened REAL Americans into supporting you, with economic promises, to gain the control you wanted to implement your social agenda.
Sadly, with the implementation of your social and demographic agenda (the multi-cultural Nirvana) it will make it impossible for REAL Americans to regain their country when they finally wake up to your plans. They will be out-voted and marginalized as you increase the 3rd world population of this country. The great fear is that, in desperation, White Americans will turn to demagogues to try to regain their power back, with disastrous consequences for us all.
You have succeeded in your plan to "Europeanize" this country- we too will be afraid of our own growing "minorities" and have to live in fear - or revolt!
Our only immediate hope now is - BIDEN '09!
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
A Psychologist Helps Repackage Democrats’ Message
Well what do you know? Lying in defense of a great cause is considered to be moral in the Liberal system of ethics. In the article in today's Times "A Psychologist Helps Repackage Democrats’ Message", that great Liberal icon says, in effect, Liberals have learned (they needed a psychologist to tell them how) to remove “liberal” from being an unsavory label by obfuscating their philosophy and policies. The document called "Message Handbook for Progressives From Left to Center” encourages them to make their policies more palatable by using euphemisms like “leadership” in place of “government” and to speak about the middle class instead of the poor.
Sound familiar? isn't this the whole basis of the Obama campaign? But since the mainstream media is in sympathy with Obama and the Democrats, they can get away with this charade and may (God forbid) be able to take over the whole government on November 4th by this dissembling. The Times of course doesn't see anything wrong with this "re-branding". All is fair in helping to bring the country to the "progressive" nirvana.
Sound familiar? isn't this the whole basis of the Obama campaign? But since the mainstream media is in sympathy with Obama and the Democrats, they can get away with this charade and may (God forbid) be able to take over the whole government on November 4th by this dissembling. The Times of course doesn't see anything wrong with this "re-branding". All is fair in helping to bring the country to the "progressive" nirvana.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Cries Of Racism
Well, it was bound to happen. As soon as McCain starts attacking the man Obama, members of his claque (in this case John Lewis) have started the cry that the Republicans are being "racist". This has worked so well in the past to silence any criticism of ANYONE who is "of color" that the Dems and their constituencies (variations are: "sexist"; "bigoted"; etc.) have the charge at the ready so that the individual under attack or the party or the group can trot it out to frighten their opponents (usually "conservative" or "right wing") into abject apology mode followed by immediate silence, in hopes of changing the subject.
Sadly it always works. In this case McCain has begun to chastise the more belligerent members of his audience and to fall all over himself to vouch for "the One".
Naturally, the press are in the audience monitoring the chatter of the more rambunctious members of McCain's followers, looking for insult to broadcast to the American public and to "shame" the Republicans into silence. Of course, they report nothing about the chatter in the Dems' crowds. Surely the members of the loony left that adore the Exotic Messiah have some very enthusiastic "admonitions" for McCain, Palin and the rest of the "right". But then these followers of the righteous one are only expressing justified anger and not - like the Republicans - "hate".
Actually, if the press ever wanted to be fair and DO THEIR JOB, all they need to do is to report fully on the hate spewing from Obama's devoted followers in the entertainment industry who are on the airwaves regularly (see Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, for example) spewing out the most outrageous insults at McCain and Palin on any given night. All in fun of course - they are sophisticates and don't do "HATE".
Sadly it always works. In this case McCain has begun to chastise the more belligerent members of his audience and to fall all over himself to vouch for "the One".
Naturally, the press are in the audience monitoring the chatter of the more rambunctious members of McCain's followers, looking for insult to broadcast to the American public and to "shame" the Republicans into silence. Of course, they report nothing about the chatter in the Dems' crowds. Surely the members of the loony left that adore the Exotic Messiah have some very enthusiastic "admonitions" for McCain, Palin and the rest of the "right". But then these followers of the righteous one are only expressing justified anger and not - like the Republicans - "hate".
Actually, if the press ever wanted to be fair and DO THEIR JOB, all they need to do is to report fully on the hate spewing from Obama's devoted followers in the entertainment industry who are on the airwaves regularly (see Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, for example) spewing out the most outrageous insults at McCain and Palin on any given night. All in fun of course - they are sophisticates and don't do "HATE".
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Time to take off the gloves
Enough of this nonsense! The Republicans have got to stop playing by the rules defined and sanctioned by the Democratic propaganda machine, AKA the mainstream media. That is a losing proposition and always was. With Obama benefiting (through no achievement of his own) from the current economic jitters in the country, McCain must redirect his attacks to what was and is the real issue in this campaign - the person who is Barack Hussein Obama.
The (so far intimidated) Republican attack machine must re-focus on Obama himself. Not his experience or lack thereof, but who he IS: His background; his parentage – the African Muslim bigamist father and the ditzy, Muslim-loving, white airhead who was his mother; his education in Indonesia; his educational history and achievements in the affirmative action haven known as the US higher education system; his associates – intellectual and otherwise; his advisors and their philosophies of Government, most especially on foreign policy. People like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Power and others need to be brought forward and exposed. After all, this exotic creature wants to be president of the United States and no one dares to say anything for fear of being called racist and bigoted. Cries of racism are truly the last refuge of scoundrels. That applies to the whole leftist “intellectual” establishment.
Two suggestions for TV ads by some enterprising “advocacy group”:
• Black-and-white film clips of the Messiah bloviating; with flash bulbs going off; with shots of his besotted, enraptured, white yuppie audiences. No sound except for the announcer repeating, slowly and emphatically: Barack Hussein Obama…. Barack HUSSEIN Obama…. Barack Hussein OBAMA….Barack HUSSEIN OBAMA…. And the tag line on the screen, before fade-out: “For President of the UNITED STATES?”
• Film clips of Zbigniew Brzezinski, with his heavy Polish accent, ranting against Israel and how its “supporters” (AKA JEWS!) are distorting US foreign policy for the benefit of Israel and against the interests of America. This ad needs to be extensively played in areas with heavy concentrations of older Jewish voters, like south Florida. If this doesn’t evoke images of the Holocaust, nothing ever will.
It is way past time to get down and dirty in this election or America is going to be saddled with this crypto-Muslim and his leftist coterie for at least the next four years. And if he and his gang have their way, this country and its foreign policy will be changed radically and forever.
The (so far intimidated) Republican attack machine must re-focus on Obama himself. Not his experience or lack thereof, but who he IS: His background; his parentage – the African Muslim bigamist father and the ditzy, Muslim-loving, white airhead who was his mother; his education in Indonesia; his educational history and achievements in the affirmative action haven known as the US higher education system; his associates – intellectual and otherwise; his advisors and their philosophies of Government, most especially on foreign policy. People like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Power and others need to be brought forward and exposed. After all, this exotic creature wants to be president of the United States and no one dares to say anything for fear of being called racist and bigoted. Cries of racism are truly the last refuge of scoundrels. That applies to the whole leftist “intellectual” establishment.
Two suggestions for TV ads by some enterprising “advocacy group”:
• Black-and-white film clips of the Messiah bloviating; with flash bulbs going off; with shots of his besotted, enraptured, white yuppie audiences. No sound except for the announcer repeating, slowly and emphatically: Barack Hussein Obama…. Barack HUSSEIN Obama…. Barack Hussein OBAMA….Barack HUSSEIN OBAMA…. And the tag line on the screen, before fade-out: “For President of the UNITED STATES?”
• Film clips of Zbigniew Brzezinski, with his heavy Polish accent, ranting against Israel and how its “supporters” (AKA JEWS!) are distorting US foreign policy for the benefit of Israel and against the interests of America. This ad needs to be extensively played in areas with heavy concentrations of older Jewish voters, like south Florida. If this doesn’t evoke images of the Holocaust, nothing ever will.
It is way past time to get down and dirty in this election or America is going to be saddled with this crypto-Muslim and his leftist coterie for at least the next four years. And if he and his gang have their way, this country and its foreign policy will be changed radically and forever.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Who the heck is he anyway?
Obama's "image problem" is that he is a chameleon of no fixed identity (ironic in the age of "identity politics"). No one really knows where he started out from (African Muslim?; Indonesian Muslim?; Hawaii beach boy?; Kansas farm boy?) but he knows where he wants to go.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Kennedy rallies Dems for Obama as convention opens
What a coup for the Democrats! Instead of having to listen to two speeches by John Edwards (philanderer) and his wife (terminal cancer patient), we get Teddy representing both Democratic constituencies. So much more efficient and so... touching.
Where is the outrage?
Another lovely headline from Reuters: "Iraqi girl aborts suicide bombing, surrenders". It seems that nothing these Muslim savages do can ever quite outrage Liberal "conscience" - and certainly not the Muslim "Umma".
Day after day, the "insurgents" and "militants" in Iraq and other parts of the Muslim "community" carry out actions that should get people of conscience to be outraged and to ACT, but nothing ever happens. Not a word! How long will the Liberals (not to even mention Muslims around the world) continue to dignify these crazy Dead Enders (Rummy, we really miss you!) with benign - and even heroic - labels like "insurgents" and "militants"?
No one even bothers to ask the question: "Why are these fanatics continuing to do this?" They have no hope of gaining power (unless of course, we cut and run,) so what is the "noble" cause that these barbarians are trying to achieve that is worthy of being labelled "insurgent'? Why not truer labels like nihilists or terrorists? That is all they truly are. Nothing noble or admirable in their madness!
Yet we keep hearing daily about the (implied) nobility of their actions in fighting the American oppressors. Will the Arabs ever wake up and speak up? Will Western Liberals? Not a chance. Their great hope (both for the "insurgents" and their apologists) is that the Exotic Messiah and the other Democrats will gain power in America and "validate" their cause by leaving Iraq. Since the Iraqis have gotten their army into some sort of effective fighting shape, even America's withdrawing will probably not allow them to achieve their goals.
Yet no one ever says a word about their madness and their cruelty to their own people. Is it any wonder that Muslims all over the world are forever backward?
Day after day, the "insurgents" and "militants" in Iraq and other parts of the Muslim "community" carry out actions that should get people of conscience to be outraged and to ACT, but nothing ever happens. Not a word! How long will the Liberals (not to even mention Muslims around the world) continue to dignify these crazy Dead Enders (Rummy, we really miss you!) with benign - and even heroic - labels like "insurgents" and "militants"?
No one even bothers to ask the question: "Why are these fanatics continuing to do this?" They have no hope of gaining power (unless of course, we cut and run,) so what is the "noble" cause that these barbarians are trying to achieve that is worthy of being labelled "insurgent'? Why not truer labels like nihilists or terrorists? That is all they truly are. Nothing noble or admirable in their madness!
Yet we keep hearing daily about the (implied) nobility of their actions in fighting the American oppressors. Will the Arabs ever wake up and speak up? Will Western Liberals? Not a chance. Their great hope (both for the "insurgents" and their apologists) is that the Exotic Messiah and the other Democrats will gain power in America and "validate" their cause by leaving Iraq. Since the Iraqis have gotten their army into some sort of effective fighting shape, even America's withdrawing will probably not allow them to achieve their goals.
Yet no one ever says a word about their madness and their cruelty to their own people. Is it any wonder that Muslims all over the world are forever backward?
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Is anyone paying attention?
Americans and Europeans have become so accustomed to Islamic intimidation in our supposedly free countries that no one seems to be paying attention to new outrages that seem to occur daily. Or is it perhaps just that the public is purposely not being informed by our supposedly freedom-loving media, who are even more terrified of Muslim violence than the general public?
A case in point is the cowardly action by Random House in "temporarily delaying " the publication of the book “The Jewel of Medina,” a novel by Sherry Jones about the child bride of the (so-called) prophet Muhammad. As the author says, she did not intend the novel to be anti-Islamic. “My intentions were to celebrate these great historical figures while dispelling misunderstandings about Islam” she says. But the West has become so supine in our collective fear that, as the Serbian publisher who withdrew the book says, publishing the book “could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.” Even the SERBS, those feral defenders of "Christian civilization", have been intimidated.
And NOT A WORD in the general Western press! The truth is, of course, that the "small, radical segment" is really the entity and the true face of Islam in the West. When will we wake up to the danger of having these savages in our countries in ever increasing numbers?
A case in point is the cowardly action by Random House in "temporarily delaying " the publication of the book “The Jewel of Medina,” a novel by Sherry Jones about the child bride of the (so-called) prophet Muhammad. As the author says, she did not intend the novel to be anti-Islamic. “My intentions were to celebrate these great historical figures while dispelling misunderstandings about Islam” she says. But the West has become so supine in our collective fear that, as the Serbian publisher who withdrew the book says, publishing the book “could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.” Even the SERBS, those feral defenders of "Christian civilization", have been intimidated.
And NOT A WORD in the general Western press! The truth is, of course, that the "small, radical segment" is really the entity and the true face of Islam in the West. When will we wake up to the danger of having these savages in our countries in ever increasing numbers?
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Inconvenient Truths
Liberals are "outraged" and "shocked" that Sen,. John McCain said about the Exotic Messiah that he “would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.” Why should McCain apologize for speaking the truth?
Not only is this statement true of the Anointed One, it is true of the entire Liberal establishment in this country. It is simply unacceptable to them thatAmerica Iraq war in the 1st place (no matter what the provocation. Now they pretend to support the Afghan war as a contrast to Iraq Afghanistan and the whole idea of retribution against Al Qaida as soon as they "successfully" scuttle the Iraq
Not only is this statement true of the Anointed One, it is true of the entire Liberal establishment in this country. It is simply unacceptable to them that
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Pandering or Moving?
It has been a constant theme in the mainstream (i.e. Liberal) media since at least the 1980's: Republicans pander, while Democrats "move to the center". Liberals cannot accept that anyone (certainly not Republican office seekers) could be sincere about the "right wing" positions they hold, be it pro-life; nationalist-patriotic; pro-religion; against gay marriage; whatever. When Republicans speak on these issues, they are"pandering" to their base constituencies.
Democrats, of course, never pander; they are sincere, courageous, advocates of their positions, even when they speak out in favor of (no matter how gingerly) positions that are generally considered to be conservative. At best (sometimes said with a note of disdain or exasperation) they are "moving to the center", which is considered no sin if it mollifies the great unwashed and gets the Democrat elected so he can do "progressive" things. Nothing about cynicism or (heaven forbid) pandering.
When Republicans advocate any "unacceptable" (i.e. non-Liberal) position, they are "exploiting wedge issues", another great sin, since some ideas are simply unacceptable in polite, Liberal, circles. Liberals cannot conceive the idea that anyone could possibly hold such positions and still be sincere. Furthermore, "wedge issues" are things that are considered beyond discussion, whether they are right or wrong. At a minimum, they are considered "divisive" - never mind that that is exactly what elections are supposed to be about, issues that "divide" the electorate. By definition, any issue is considered divisive if it falls outside the Liberal consensus.
These attitudes in the media are so constant, that they are never questioned or open to discussion. All this is doubled in spades (no pun intended) when it comes to the Anointed One. A current example: When Bush spoke of faith-based initiatives, he was pandering to the Religious Right; when Obama advocates continuing and expanding such initiatives he, of course, is only drawing on his background as an "advocate" with a long history of association with the "Black" church (Rev. Wright, where are you?) and its community work.
As Sen. Dole asked once upon a time: "Where is the outrage?"
Democrats, of course, never pander; they are sincere, courageous, advocates of their positions, even when they speak out in favor of (no matter how gingerly) positions that are generally considered to be conservative. At best (sometimes said with a note of disdain or exasperation) they are "moving to the center", which is considered no sin if it mollifies the great unwashed and gets the Democrat elected so he can do "progressive" things. Nothing about cynicism or (heaven forbid) pandering.
When Republicans advocate any "unacceptable" (i.e. non-Liberal) position, they are "exploiting wedge issues", another great sin, since some ideas are simply unacceptable in polite, Liberal, circles. Liberals cannot conceive the idea that anyone could possibly hold such positions and still be sincere. Furthermore, "wedge issues" are things that are considered beyond discussion, whether they are right or wrong. At a minimum, they are considered "divisive" - never mind that that is exactly what elections are supposed to be about, issues that "divide" the electorate. By definition, any issue is considered divisive if it falls outside the Liberal consensus.
These attitudes in the media are so constant, that they are never questioned or open to discussion. All this is doubled in spades (no pun intended) when it comes to the Anointed One. A current example: When Bush spoke of faith-based initiatives, he was pandering to the Religious Right; when Obama advocates continuing and expanding such initiatives he, of course, is only drawing on his background as an "advocate" with a long history of association with the "Black" church (Rev. Wright, where are you?) and its community work.
As Sen. Dole asked once upon a time: "Where is the outrage?"
Friday, June 13, 2008
Guantanamo - What Now?
As would be expected, the NY Times led the jubilation by the Liberal media at the Supreme Court decision to, in effect, treat thugs captured in our defensive war against Islam to the full range of constitutional protections of American citizens, starting with the right to habeas corpus, the right of anyone being held by the government to challenge his confinement before a civilian judge. Needless to say, this right is not granted to even legitimate prisoners of war in the middle of an ongoing conflict. This 1st “grant” must inevitably lead to other procedural protections - on evidence and presumption of innocence - that go with any criminal trial in a civilian court. Presumably, soldiers in battle must now be accompanied by a full-scale CSI unit (“Afghanistan CSI”?). We can only imagine the glee and the feeling of facile righteousness that will envelope Liberals when some of these thugs are let loose (some even before trial) because our troops in the field did not use all the correct procedures to apprehend them. Oh what joy!
As has already happened when others were let loose previously (usually under pressure from our “allies”) and promptly went back to their evil ways, we will hear nothing from the Liberals. Just like when domestic criminals, freed on procedural grounds, go on to commit other crimes, we will be told “this is the price we pay for our liberties and constitutional protections”. Sadly, it will not be any of the justices who will pay this price.
In the cases of freed domestic criminals, they can at least be under the watch of local or Federal law enforcement. But when these Muslim thugs disappear back in their home countries, who is there to watch them and protect us? Is facile righteousness for Liberals enough to compensate the rest of us for the carnage they will perpetrate?
The Supreme Court justices who have instigated this idiocy are typical egg-head theorists who will divorce themselves from the consequences of their benevolence and bouts of human kindness. Their feeling good about themselves for “upholding (really inventing!) Constitutional principles” is not enough compensation for the rest of us, if we – domestically - or our troops in the field are subjected to future outrages by these “victimized” thugs. Any blood that they spill is squarely on the heads of these judges and the whole lot of the “civil rights” industry.
The one thing wrong with the
Who Dissed Hillary and Why?
Some Democrats, most especially the feminists, are up in arms about the supposed bad treatment that Hillary Clinton got in the media during the primaries. True to their victimist mind-set, they are naturally claiming sexism. This is the standard lament by all ideologues in the “identity” politics industry - no matter what their identity group is – when their candidate is defeated or when their demands are not met in full. Wait for the hue and cry if Obama loses in the general election despite all the efforts and positive prognostications by his admirers (and there are many!) in the media - RACISM.
In this case, of course, there were many factors in play to explain
In order to ensure the triumph of this exotic Messiah, the Liberal-oriented media was even willing to overtly commit the sin of sexism, and to even point out, and openly discuss, some unpleasant truths about her and how she got to be where she did in politics: beneficiary of sympathy votes in reaction to her husband’s bimbo eruptions; beneficiary of her husband’s chicanery and accumulated political clout and wealth. All the things that the Liberal media was willing to overlook and excuse for her and her husband over the last 16 years (they wouldn’t have wanted to give aid and comfort to the right wing conspiracy, after all) were now in play in the service of the greater good - to boost the electoral prospects of the Anointed One.
In truth, this is delicious irony. It was the election of the
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The Spirit of Entebbe - Doing the "Unthinkable"
Liberal opinion in the US along with the entire political spectrum in Europe take the position that military action against Iran, if it does not give up its nuclear program, is "unthinkable" and would be a "disaster". In an attempt to play "warrior" they put up all kinds of reasoning about tactical problems against eliminating
Since Iran has been able to ignore things like economic sanctions with impunity (aided and abetted by Russia, China and our so-called allies), peremptorily taking all forms of military action off the table amounts to giving Iran a green light to do anything it wants without fear of significant retaliation. All the Liberals in the West recoiled with horror at Hillary Clinton's suggestion that Iran would be obliterated if it attacked Israel, giving Iran, in effect, the go-ahead to obliterate Israel if it should ever gain the capability to do so, without any fear of consequences (after-all we wouldn't want to hurt innocent Iranian civilians just because they would be joyful at any effort to annihilate the dirty Jews!).
As always, pusillanimous western "leaders" are ready to give up others' freedom and lives, just so they can live up to their "high" pacifist principles. Of such intellectually bankrupt mindsets are historic disasters fashioned. Are you listening, Barrack Hussein Obama?
To show their bona fides and to seal the deal, Liberals always like to talk in military terms, throwing around words like "tactical" and "strategic", setting up straw dummies - only to knock them down - to argue that military action is not feasible and, thus, should be "off-the-table": In this instance, they assert that the only option is aerial bombing (shades of Serbia!) and that, since Iran's facilities are scattered and dug in, the US would have to use very heavy weapons, like bunker-busting bombs or even tactical nuclear weapons (oh heaven forefend!) that would result in civilian casualties - something that, apparently, was not a big moral issue when bombing Serbia. Yet, of course, the actual military campaign may and SHOULD include special operations forces attacking on the ground to take out the hidden and deeply dug-in targets. Sadly, the kind of ground action that would be required may end up being near-suicidal missions.
In our current mind-set, especially as the Bush administration comes to and end and pacifism, in the person of Democrats, dominate our country (remember, "It’s all about the troops") these kinds of missions will not be undertaken by the
For the Israelis, however, the equation is quite different. For them it will be a question of "suicide missions now; or assured national suicide later". It is hoped that under better and more resolute national leadership, the Israelis will re-ignite the "spirit of
Friday, June 6, 2008
What Now?
Well, the Exotic Messiah is one step closer to ascending his earthly throne. And what did we end up with? WHO is this guy? What has he actually done to deserve all the hosannas and hallelujahs?
More than anything he is the vessel, the repository, of the hopes and dreams (and the guilty conscience) of the predominantly White intelligentsia, particularly as represented in the mainstream news media. For the Liberals, he is the perfect candidate to lead them back to power: a left-Liberal, who is also Black and “clean”. What a combination! No Dukakis or Kerry, bland White men, trying to act moderate to appeal to the White middle and working classes (but never quite able to hide their “intellectual” disdain for the people whom they need to appeal to); No “dirty”, sleazy, Black “leader” like Jackson or Sharpton, who could not possibly be snuck into power after years of open race baiting and demagoguery. Here is the perfect combo: ‘intellectual”, sounding almost White; certainly a fully-paid-up member of the academic, quasi-governmental, Liberal elite. And he is interracial, with a vague, exotic, (just a hint of Islam) background - but most certainly, identifiably Black! The added bonus is that, because he is Black and “multi-cultural”, he is going to be practically immune from savage attack by the cowering Conservatives. No Willie Horton! No Swift Boat, thank you very much!
The most pathetic people, in their reaction to Obama, are the Conservatives, inside the media and out. As well as being defensive about “the sins of Bush”, they have been programmed over the last forty years to be “sensitive” to being accused of the ultimate sin: RACISM. The final surrender really began in 2000 when G. W. Bush, after eight years of national “re-education” in the joys of “diversity”, under the
Now Conservatives are fully programmed to avoid even the hint of racism. We can be sure that just about any personal attack against the Anointed One will raise the cry of racism - and whoever dared to make the attack will cringe and slink away, like a vampire before the sign of the cross. And of course, the Republicans have fully disarmed by exiling effective hard campaigners like Rove and De Lay.
Instead of fighting for their ideas and their candidates, Republicans have succumbed to the demonization of their party, in general, and of the Bush Administration, in particular. Poor, ignorant, Bush and demon Chaney, all the ills of
- We are hostage to the dirty Arabs for our oil? Bush doesn’t have an energy policy (he has one, but since it didn’t please the left-wing environmentalists, it was dismissed out-of-hand). It seems no one else in the thirty plus years of neglect by both parties, as they indulged their various constituencies on the left and the right, had anything to do with our current mess. Certainly not the Democratic clients in the unions (UAW job protection) or the environmentalists (who obstructed new drilling for domestic oil supplies or other “dirty” forms of energy growth, like shale oil or coal gasification, from being pursued, while chasing unrealistic dreams of clean and renewable energy to save the planet. No one seems to ask: if “clean” energy is so easily and economically attainable, why haven’t the Japanese and Europeans – certainly not under the control of Bush/Chaney – been able to harness them effectively?
- Our sorry balance-of-payments and Federal deficit situation? It was all the fault of Bush’s “tax cuts for the wealthy” and HIS globalization. No word on over fifty years of Liberal strategy of helping the 2nd and 3rd world catch up to America by opening up America’s markets; no word on Liberal social spending and entitlements programs.
- And the list goes on and on.
Now the Messiah has come to claim his earthly throne. WHO is this man? What exactly has he accomplished to merit such adoration? What exactly are his policies and priorities beyond the same tired left-Liberal nostrums that have been pitched over and over again by the previous white-bread Liberal candidates? No one asks; No one cares. The Exotic Messiah is here and he cannot be questioned lest we encourage the sin of RACISM.
The real question between now and November is whether the American public will wake up from their induced trance in time to put away this latest manifestation of the same old leftist rubbish: Appeasement and cowardice in foreign policy and the same old failed socialist nostrums here at home.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
If Only................
If only Liberals had foresight: if, in 1999, they had let Bill Clinton twist slowly in the wind, helped to convict him and have him removed from office, just think where they would be right now:
- Al Gore becomes president and can then be elected for an additional two terms. He is so cute and cuddly that he would have easily beat George Bush in 2000, especially with the full support of the Liberal establishment
- A second full term for Gore would have been a shoo-in (unless, of course, the American public becomes too concerned about his pusillanimous foreign policy - forever waiting for the definitive UN resolution to force the Taliban to expel Osama and turn him over to the "international court" at the Hague!)
- Bill Clinton is quietly buried and no longer an embarrassment to Gore and the Democrats. He can still get fabulously wealthy trading on his contacts with the Arabs and other notorious international players. That might have been enough to keep the Clintons out of everyone's hair.
- No Bill, no Hillary. No Senate seat, no power base for a run at the presidency. She wouldn't have dared to run against Gore in 2004, would she?
- Lastly, no candidate from hell. The path for Obama, the Anointed One, would have been clear. Ahhh heaven!
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Sister Souljah Moment
Sen. Barack Obama has played out his Sister Souljah Moment by leaving
Amazingly, sadly, this cynical ploy will probably work. The desperate Liberal opinionators are most likely busy this very minute writing up a defense and rationale for why this is such a noble and courageous move. His stated reason is rather convoluted and “family” oriented; it should give his clackers plenty to work with. No chance that they will ask the obvious question: “What took you so long?”
Of course, if he was really cool and bold, he’d return to his father’s religion, Islam. The Liberals would swoon with joy and ecstasy at his heroic affirmation of his culture. As it is, there is no chance that this new “act of faith” would trigger any questions – obvious, but very cynical – about the depth and sincerity of his religious commitment and his much-admired decision to become a “Christian” twenty years ago, with the guidance of his beloved uncle Jeremiah. Were both actions really just to enhance his political viability? Again, shades of Bill Clinton.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The Real Appeasment Analogy
The current debate about Bush’s Knesset speech, its applicability to the present time and to Obama’s “dialogue” obsession, is hung up on the appeasement at
Post-war research showed that the German military were so afraid of disaster that they might have carried out a coup to oust Hitler from power if
But, of course, the irresolute democracies did nothing, preferring
“Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”.
How Dare You?
In their zeal to blacken Bush and McCain and to provide support and cover for Obama and the other Democratic appeasers, the New York Times imputed to Bush the charge of equivalencing Israeli dealings with an enemy (Syria), with appeasing the Nazis. How despicably low can they go? Moral equivalency and excuse-by-equivalency are part of the Liberal stock in trade; NOT what moral people would be expected to do.
On the specific issue of Israeli negotiation with
1)
2) There is a huge difference between low level diplomats getting together in a 3rd country to explore possibilities, and a full show of acceptance and head-to-head photo ops that enhance thugs - which is what Obama was initially proposing, in response to a question on one of the interminable Democratic Party debates. He seems to have backed off, now, to sort of proposing a step-by-step approach (in fact similar with what has been going on all along, as it should be). Obama is just full of feel-good talk that is intended for consumption by his self-righteous followers. That is not something he can indulge in if he is in high office. Obama and his talk of open negotiation and "engagement" is the perfect illustration of the term "fuzzy headed Liberal". If he were a woman, some unkind person might even call him "ditzy".
3) To the extent that the
If the NY Times is the "objective" source of news and analysis it claims to be, they need to curb their ideological zeal and political imperatives and not allow them to get in the way of dispassionate reporting and commentary. We all realize how desperate the Times and the rest of the Liberal media are to ease Obama's way to the White House, but a little fairness, too, please! Perhaps that is too much to ask of the Liberals - after all, they ARE trying to bring the exotic messiah to his rightful position as head of the nation, to redeem us and cleanse us of our sins.
Another Name For Terrorism
The "thinkers" in
The "problem" with the phrase "war on terror" started immediately after 9/11 when GWB (perhaps trying to protect the future viability of the Bush family business) would not characterize the conflict for what it really is: A DEFENSIVE war against Islam - no more no less! The sickening displays of Bush's sycophancy towards Muslims, in general, and the Saudis, in particular, should make the stomach of every patriotic American and lover of Western culture and society turn in disgust. It is the only part of Bush's foreign and domestic policy that is truly objectionable
All discussions about terminology is obfuscation, pure and simple. TERROR is a tool that can be used for any fanatic cause; ISLAM is an ideology and a cult that we must fight. It has invaded (literally) our country, and stands in opposition to our interests and well-being around the world. All the soothing words not withstanding, there is absolutely NO compatibility between Islam and free, secular and democratic societies.
If it had not been for our idiotic immigration and refugee policies over the last 40 years, allowing unfettered access to the Muslim barbarians to our countries, we would not have to worry about winning their "hearts and minds" and their good-will so that they wouldn't get really mad at us and attack us in our own homeland.
Allowing these barbarians to come and settle here and eventually overwhelm us is a disaster in the making. It is the most disastrous social policy since the Romans allowed the first barbarian "refugees" to settle within the borders of the Empire.
The best remedy is control or (if necessary) expulsion. In the meantime, until a truly patriotic government comes into power here, we must watch our back, individually and collectively.
The Curse Of Unintended Consequences
In support of a spurious ruling by a state court in upstate New York, the Governor has decreed that the state will now recognize all marriages legally contracted in any state in the US and in any foreign country. While the ruling is ostensibly intended to advance the cause of Gay marriage (that is the state's only STATED intent), one has to wonder whether the do-gooders in NY have really thought through all the consequences of this action; certainly, Liberal judges will not have - or maybe they INTEND the ruling to be the "foot-in the door" for more radical "social advances".
Since America's idiotic immigration laws open the country to citizens from all over the world (the more exotic source-country, the better - something we are constantly propagandized to "celebrate") NY will now be required to recognize all legal marriage arrangements from all over the world, no matter how outrageous we might normally have thought they might be (ooooh, so judgmental!).
It is almost certain that NY will now be required to recognize Muslim polygamous marriages from our wonderful, diverse, immigrant populations. Already, we were expected - and most duly obliged - to "celebrate" the immigrants from Mali who perished in a fire in the Bronx in March 2007: never mind that some of the family were here illegally or that the "head of the household" had two wives being partly supported by our welfare system. After all, we are in the throes of facile righteousness, here! Now that the Governor has so kind-heartedly and arbitrarily changed the law, we can expect a flood of these "hard working" Muslim immigrants to step forward, whether they are already in-country or not, to make their full claims on our society.
However, polygamy may only be the beginning of this new national adventure in diversity. In many countries, first-cousin and uncle-niece marriages are quite common. Oh well, there go the incest laws!
Also quite common in these countries are child marriage and marriage between adult males and under-age girls (many polygamous, too). Did the Governor think about these "legal" marriages?
Barack Obama's polygamous father (and presumably, the son, too) would be so pleased.
Our diversification adventure continues! Allahu Akbar!
Since America's idiotic immigration laws open the country to citizens from all over the world (the more exotic source-country, the better - something we are constantly propagandized to "celebrate") NY will now be required to recognize all legal marriage arrangements from all over the world, no matter how outrageous we might normally have thought they might be (ooooh, so judgmental!).
It is almost certain that NY will now be required to recognize Muslim polygamous marriages from our wonderful, diverse, immigrant populations. Already, we were expected - and most duly obliged - to "celebrate" the immigrants from Mali who perished in a fire in the Bronx in March 2007: never mind that some of the family were here illegally or that the "head of the household" had two wives being partly supported by our welfare system. After all, we are in the throes of facile righteousness, here! Now that the Governor has so kind-heartedly and arbitrarily changed the law, we can expect a flood of these "hard working" Muslim immigrants to step forward, whether they are already in-country or not, to make their full claims on our society.
However, polygamy may only be the beginning of this new national adventure in diversity. In many countries, first-cousin and uncle-niece marriages are quite common. Oh well, there go the incest laws!
Also quite common in these countries are child marriage and marriage between adult males and under-age girls (many polygamous, too). Did the Governor think about these "legal" marriages?
Barack Obama's polygamous father (and presumably, the son, too) would be so pleased.
Our diversification adventure continues! Allahu Akbar!
Thursday, May 22, 2008
False Hopes
As reported in today’s NY Times Article: "Many Florida Jews Express Doubts on Obama", Mr. Obama is out looking for Jewish votes in
The sub-theme of this article is how Liberal Jews are reconciling themselves (or rather, being bamboozled into being reconciled) to the exotic messiah when all their instincts tell them to be wary. Jews have so bought in to the Liberal dream – or even further Leftist fantasies - about the "brotherhood of man", that they will follow anyone nominated by the Democrats, even against their better judgments. Jews still dream of the great Kumbaya moments from the 30’s through early 60’s when they supported the Civil Rights movement, giving their money, their time and even their lives for the cause. Those days of amity and camaraderie are – sadly - long past. Jews are still the great proponents of multiculturalism and its corollary, large-scale immigration from the 3rd world to achieve the Liberal Nirvana off
There are Jewish politicians, like Lieberman and Koch, who long ago awakened from the "sweet dream" to the hard reality of what the academic Left, now represented by Obama, advocate in foreign policy: hatred of the United States and all it stands for; hatred of anyone who is closely identified with US foreign policy, most especially Israel. The best that Obama can ever be, as far as Mid-East issues are concerned, is another Jimmy Carter. Do any but deracinated, self-hating, "desperate to be loved", Jews think that is good enough? Obama will have the remnants of the Democratic/academic Left in his administration or as advisers. People like the currently-silenced Samantha Power (who advocated that the
As for the Jewish "leaders" supporting Obama - as for politicians in general - ideological myopia and personal aggrandizement triumph over national interests every time!
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Two Articles - Two Candidates
Two articles in today's NY Times ("The McCain Doctrines" and "The Long Run: The Story of Obama, Written by Obama") should illustrate, for any objective observer, the chasm between the qualifications of the two prospective candidates for the presidency this year. Obama is all biography, while McCain has given long and deep consideration to one of the most pressing issues in this campaign. foreign policy and the place and obligation of America in the world.
Of course, in keeping with current political and intellectual fashion, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media have given their collective hearts to Obama, the candidate of "change" and the man who "looks like the rest of the world" and who will make us loved everywhere. The irony is that the"intellectual" Obama, the darling of the self-selected "intelligentsia" - Harvard-educated, expounding in mellifluous tones - is considered the intellectual candidate, while "old as dirt" McCain is derided as the Bush-clone military know-nothing - all patriotism and gore, and no thought.
The two articles, by the leftist Times, taken together, show that the opposite is true. Obama is running on his biography; no one can be certain what his true beliefs are and what his policy will be - except that it will be pleasing to the (often anti-American) pacifist Left. He will do whatever it takes to avoid taking hard actions displeasing to the academics and Liberal think tanks. How he arrives at his policies, beyond being true to the ideological biases of the Left is unknown. There is not even any exposition on what exactly he proposes to do beyond "get out of Iraq" (how? what will happen when we leave? does it matter?) and to "engage our adversaries". His defenders have taken every shameful intellectual short-cut (even resorting to non sequitur and false analogies) to hide the shallowness of his thinking and the lack of his experience and record on the issues: WHAT exactly is he going to require Israel to do to "accommodate" the "rights" of the Palestinians? How is he going to engage Iran? What incentives is he planning to offer Iran beyond what the pusillanimous Europeans have already offered? Bush was right: Any further talks with Iran can only be the basis for appeasement!Of course, in keeping with current political and intellectual fashion, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media have given their collective hearts to Obama, the candidate of "change" and the man who "looks like the rest of the world" and who will make us loved everywhere. The irony is that the"intellectual" Obama, the darling of the self-selected "intelligentsia" - Harvard-educated, expounding in mellifluous tones - is considered the intellectual candidate, while "old as dirt" McCain is derided as the Bush-clone military know-nothing - all patriotism and gore, and no thought.
The Times' magazine article discusses in depth how McCain arrived at his beliefs, from his education in the military, through his personal experience of war and defeat, to his participation in decision-making on world crises over the last 20 years. Nothing in Obama's background, education or intellectual musings come close to matching the deep thought that McCain has given these issues. McCain's opinions and conclusions may not please the one-world, feel-good, hard-left, but that is more the fault of their constricted theoretical world-view than it is the fault of McCain's realism and hard-learned lessons.
It is sad and extremely dangerous that the electorate, in their short-term desperation and dislike of Bush and the Iraq war, will be bamboozled into handing America's foreign policy and national interests to Obama and his leftist clique. Shades of 1976, when America turned the presidency over to Carter, as a reaction to Nixon and Ford, which led us into the current world of fanatic Muslim power run wild. Carter's inaction in the face of the overthrow of the Shah and the humiliation of the hostage crisis validated the Iranian "Islamic Revolution", which became the model for all the follow-on Islamic radicals' successes. The Iranian revolution should have been strangled in the cradle, as an object lesson to the crazies of the world of the fate that would await them if they dared to move against America's interests or to attempt to humiliate us by terroristic actions.
Bush lectures Arab world on political reform
An honest man tells the truth. In a series of speechs, Bush trumps all the caterwauling on the politically correct left and TELLS THE TRUTH! How outrageous! All the purveyors of facile righteousness, the moral equivocators and "cultural sensitivity" crowd will be out in force to denounce the man for telling the unvarnished truth.
Where is his sensitivity to the down-trodden "other"? What can he be thinking of? He wants them to be held accountable for their actions and in-actions; for the shortcomings of their "culture"? Really, the man should be shot! Is it any wonder he is being chased out of office? Where does he come off demanding accountability, and daring to just tell the plain truth?
As a minimum, he would have been expected to show "sensitivity" and "empathy" for those poster children of victimism, the Palestinians. But Nooooo! There he goes just praising their "oppressors" for creating a peaceful, democratic, productive society in the face of genocidal, fanatic actions by the "oppressed" (5 million people oppressing 300 million, yet). How dare the Israelies succeed like that? Must be the nefarious plotting and treachery of the world-wide Jewish conspiracy. And Bush has the audacity to praise them and congratulate them?
There is no limit to the depth of depravity and evil of this man!
God bless you, Dubya. We will miss you.
Where is his sensitivity to the down-trodden "other"? What can he be thinking of? He wants them to be held accountable for their actions and in-actions; for the shortcomings of their "culture"? Really, the man should be shot! Is it any wonder he is being chased out of office? Where does he come off demanding accountability, and daring to just tell the plain truth?
As a minimum, he would have been expected to show "sensitivity" and "empathy" for those poster children of victimism, the Palestinians. But Nooooo! There he goes just praising their "oppressors" for creating a peaceful, democratic, productive society in the face of genocidal, fanatic actions by the "oppressed" (5 million people oppressing 300 million, yet). How dare the Israelies succeed like that? Must be the nefarious plotting and treachery of the world-wide Jewish conspiracy. And Bush has the audacity to praise them and congratulate them?
There is no limit to the depth of depravity and evil of this man!
God bless you, Dubya. We will miss you.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Lebanon and Spain
Does this seem familiar? A democratically elected government is under attack by fascists while the "western democracies" dither and cavil about legality and legitimacy and (by all means!) "we must engage with our enemies and have sustained dialog with them".
Again, as in Spain in the 1930s, a friendly and (semi-) democratic government is facing an onslaught by fascists. As we dither, the fascist powers (now Syria and Iran in place of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy) provide full support for their surrogates, Hezbollah. All the rationalization about how Hezbollah is really a "nationalist movement" (after all they are fighting the dirty Jewish imperialists!) cannot hide the basic moral cowardice of the West. “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing”.
As for the Lebanese government, it serves them right! If they had taken the opportunity in 2006, when Israel tried to neutralize Hezbollah, and joined in the fray to finally annihilate the Islamic monster, they could have had full possession of their country now. They could have then settled whatever minor, petty, political differences they have between the various "confessional" communities and resumed their progress towards full democracy and participation in western society. Instead they let their hatred of Israel and its very existence to blind them to their own interests, to embrace the Lebanese "nationalist" charade and to support the "heroic fighters" of Hezbollah. They could not possibly have been stupid enough to actually believe that their "national interests" were the same as Hezbollah's, which were perfectly happy to act as the surrogates of Syria and Iran against Israel - and within Lebanon, itself. Hoist on their own petard, indeed.
Again, as in Spain in the 1930s, a friendly and (semi-) democratic government is facing an onslaught by fascists. As we dither, the fascist powers (now Syria and Iran in place of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy) provide full support for their surrogates, Hezbollah. All the rationalization about how Hezbollah is really a "nationalist movement" (after all they are fighting the dirty Jewish imperialists!) cannot hide the basic moral cowardice of the West. “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing”.
As for the Lebanese government, it serves them right! If they had taken the opportunity in 2006, when Israel tried to neutralize Hezbollah, and joined in the fray to finally annihilate the Islamic monster, they could have had full possession of their country now. They could have then settled whatever minor, petty, political differences they have between the various "confessional" communities and resumed their progress towards full democracy and participation in western society. Instead they let their hatred of Israel and its very existence to blind them to their own interests, to embrace the Lebanese "nationalist" charade and to support the "heroic fighters" of Hezbollah. They could not possibly have been stupid enough to actually believe that their "national interests" were the same as Hezbollah's, which were perfectly happy to act as the surrogates of Syria and Iran against Israel - and within Lebanon, itself. Hoist on their own petard, indeed.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Supercilious Elitism
All the jabber about Obama’s bout of elitism with his elitist “homis” in San Francisco
Obama is the epitome of the Affirmative Action baby, selected by liberal academia to become one of their own. And what a prize trophy he turned out to be: multiracial and exotic; elegant and tasteful, mimicking the speech and attitudes of his benefactors - not at all like the other, more unsavory, “people of color” (Leonard Jeffries, where are you?) who would be a hard sell to that “great unwashed”, the American electorate; a “community activist” (none of that unseemly hungering after wealth so prevalent amongst newly empowered poor people – Bill Clinton, for example); “clean”, as Joe Biden would say. His election to the Presidency would be the final triumph of the “multicultural enterprise”, so dear to the heart of the liberal (self-identified and glorified) intelligentsia, with the added bonus of his Muslim connections that would, presumably, endear the US to the Muslim world and, perhaps, persuade them to forgive us “the sins of Bush”. Is it any wonder that he set the hearts of liberal writers and talking heads a-flutter with joy and ardor?
These “knowledge elites” (the modern-day illuminati) are so wrapped up in their own world, the cocoon of academia; “public interest” groups; dilettantish philanthropists and beautiful-people hangers-on (with a few not-so-reformed “robber barons” thrown in) that they are shocked when their “intellectual” musings cause offense to, or are not taken in the enlightened spirit in which they are uttered by, the “people out there”. They cannot understand how they - with their “large” spirit and intellectual power – could ever be suspected of having any kinds of base motives (certainly not condescension!) towards their intellectual inferiors. They are enlightened and benevolent. Everything they propose is for the greater good. Of course, it is understood that for the “good” to be realized, they and others of their ilk must be in the vanguard (shades of Lenin, indeed!)
Poor Barack was only musing amongst his intellectual peers who would understand his ideas without the need for elaboration. What a shock that his words were let out from the enchanted circle and became subject to misinterpretation “out there”. To him and his peers, guns and religion would indeed be the opiate of the people; The liberals themselves, of course, would be able to handle guns and religion without any danger of misuse, if they so choose. Interestingly (but perhaps not surprisingly), no one asked Obama how his much-touted religious faith (the one he acquired from Rev. Wright!) compares to the opiate of the “bitter people”. What does his “clinging” to Christianity signify?
Since the first election of Bill Clinton, these “vanguard” people have learned the lesson of pandering to the white middle class (as opposed to their more ideologically-sincere pandering to their core interest groups) by elaborate pretense. Middle class “values” have become the mantra for Democrats seeking office outside the liberal heartland in
Poor Barack, he needs to be better attuned to the lingo and the hypocrisy – in other words, he needs to learn from Hillary!
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Europe "Stands Up" For Its Principles
Not surprisingly, the Europeans (and the United States, too) have reacted timorously to the release of the Geert Wilders film "Fitna", a film that attempts to show that the Koran is the true source of Muslim violence in defense of their "faith". While (very reluctantly) defending the right of Wilders to make and exhibit his film on free speech principles, all western countries and information outlets did all they could to prevent the film from seeing the light of day. The one Internet outlet that agreed to distribute the film, the British web site LiveLeak.com, has now withdrawn the film from the web, citing threats to its staff "of a very serious nature." This sad episode, in fact, clearly illustrates the film's contention about the violent nature of Islam and the Koran's "inspiration" that violence is the way to defend the faith from attack and from any insults, real or perceived.
The EU fell all over itself to disown the message of the film and to plead with Muslims all over the world to PLEASE not get violent. Naturally, they put forth all the usual clichés about the "peaceful" nature of Islam - while the plea itself spoke to the lie of these assurances.
The Euros are so pathetic in their pleading, that they actually purposefully mis-state the contention of the film, in order to deny something that the film does NOT say: "I do not agree with the film because you cannot say 1.3 billion Muslims are potential terrorists," Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller told reporters. Wilders never makes this contention. His point is that the Koran very explicitly directs acts of hatred against non-believers (the Jews are in for very special treatment here!) and directs Muslim to commit violence in defense of Islam and to propagate it. Since the film DIRECTLY quotes the Koran and then provides (sometimes generic) illustrations of the principle involved, there really can't be any question that the points are made. The film never says "1.3 billion Muslims are potential terrorists", though it SHOULD have!
These pathetic acts of cowardice and supplication by the "enlightened" western leaders are amplified by their dead silence when Christianity or Judaism are attacked by academics, web nuts or (most disturbing) by Muslims everywhere. Where are these great "leaders" when Muslims in EUROPE and the Middle Easts say the most vile things against us? Hiding for cover under the poxed blankets of "tolerance and understanding", usually. No grand speeches to defend the "victims" in those instances
The EU fell all over itself to disown the message of the film and to plead with Muslims all over the world to PLEASE not get violent. Naturally, they put forth all the usual clichés about the "peaceful" nature of Islam - while the plea itself spoke to the lie of these assurances.
The Euros are so pathetic in their pleading, that they actually purposefully mis-state the contention of the film, in order to deny something that the film does NOT say: "I do not agree with the film because you cannot say 1.3 billion Muslims are potential terrorists," Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller told reporters. Wilders never makes this contention. His point is that the Koran very explicitly directs acts of hatred against non-believers (the Jews are in for very special treatment here!) and directs Muslim to commit violence in defense of Islam and to propagate it. Since the film DIRECTLY quotes the Koran and then provides (sometimes generic) illustrations of the principle involved, there really can't be any question that the points are made. The film never says "1.3 billion Muslims are potential terrorists", though it SHOULD have!
These pathetic acts of cowardice and supplication by the "enlightened" western leaders are amplified by their dead silence when Christianity or Judaism are attacked by academics, web nuts or (most disturbing) by Muslims everywhere. Where are these great "leaders" when Muslims in EUROPE and the Middle Easts say the most vile things against us? Hiding for cover under the poxed blankets of "tolerance and understanding", usually. No grand speeches to defend the "victims" in those instances
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Geert Wilders - Hero
In the pusillanimous collection of European political leaders, it is refreshing and encouraging to find at least one man of courage who dares to speak the truth about Islam, its "prophet" and its "holy book" the Koran. Mr. Wilders is causing quite a sensation with his planned documentary examining the Koran and unequivocally identifying it as the source of evil and barbarity that it is.
Europeans are in a tizzy about anticipated Muslim reaction - anticipated to be violent, savage and destructive of Europeans' property, lives and peace of mind. If only Mr. Wilders would close his eyes and play nice like all the other timorous European leaders, why the filthy beast of Islam in Europe may continue to be silently appeased for a little while longer, until a final surrender to Islam in the face of demographic inevitability. But No! Mr. Wilders insists on telling the truth and facing the looming catastrophe head on before it consumes them all.
It is truly sad to see once mighty Europe cower before these savages, caught up in the logic (or ILLOGIC) of their "tolerance" rhetoric and (more to the point) afraid to stand up for their values and their way of life lest they be attacked by the domestic beast that they have created for themselves. Even that "defender" of Christianity, the papacy. is falling all over itself to assure the savages, within Europe and in the Muslim "fatherlands", that they mean no harm and no disrespect to the "religion of peace". The islamo-fascists must have a great laugh every time they accuse the Europeans - and the pope in particular - of waging a crusade against Islam. How delightful it must be to Muslims everywhere to hear the apologies and contrition they can induce by simply accusing the West of being intolerant.
Mr. Wilders is one of the rare European politicians that dare to speak up and, for his courage, he is vilified and ridiculed (he is a bit of an eccentric) at home. He is in physical danger from the adherents of the "religion of peace" and requires police protection, even in his HOME country, in civilized Europe. When will we in the West finally realize how dangerous, backward and ill -suited for our countries Islam is. The courageous few, like Mr. Wilders, need to be protected and supported no matter how eccentric and politically incorrect they might be.
Europeans are in a tizzy about anticipated Muslim reaction - anticipated to be violent, savage and destructive of Europeans' property, lives and peace of mind. If only Mr. Wilders would close his eyes and play nice like all the other timorous European leaders, why the filthy beast of Islam in Europe may continue to be silently appeased for a little while longer, until a final surrender to Islam in the face of demographic inevitability. But No! Mr. Wilders insists on telling the truth and facing the looming catastrophe head on before it consumes them all.
It is truly sad to see once mighty Europe cower before these savages, caught up in the logic (or ILLOGIC) of their "tolerance" rhetoric and (more to the point) afraid to stand up for their values and their way of life lest they be attacked by the domestic beast that they have created for themselves. Even that "defender" of Christianity, the papacy. is falling all over itself to assure the savages, within Europe and in the Muslim "fatherlands", that they mean no harm and no disrespect to the "religion of peace". The islamo-fascists must have a great laugh every time they accuse the Europeans - and the pope in particular - of waging a crusade against Islam. How delightful it must be to Muslims everywhere to hear the apologies and contrition they can induce by simply accusing the West of being intolerant.
Mr. Wilders is one of the rare European politicians that dare to speak up and, for his courage, he is vilified and ridiculed (he is a bit of an eccentric) at home. He is in physical danger from the adherents of the "religion of peace" and requires police protection, even in his HOME country, in civilized Europe. When will we in the West finally realize how dangerous, backward and ill -suited for our countries Islam is. The courageous few, like Mr. Wilders, need to be protected and supported no matter how eccentric and politically incorrect they might be.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Obama Crying “Uncle”
Excuses and obfuscation are the basic tools of ideologues who want to short circuit an argument. Barack Obama's speech on Race was entirely a non sequitur. Does he accept Wright's contentions on 9/11; the spread of AIDS;
All this obfuscation not withstanding, facts are still facts! Either the things Wright says are correct or they are not! Either the
What is the great "unifier and leader", Obama, doing to change these erroneous perceptions in the Black community as he goes about trying to change the hard hearts of Whites?
When are eternally guilt-ridden Liberal White commentators going to start holding Mr. Obama to the same standards as White politicians? When Liberals will accept (for example) that a White politician can go to Bob Jones University, “sincerely” talk about policy (social, foreign or domestic), without being made to answer for the school’s policy on inter-racial dating, they will be free to give a pass to any Black preacher, politician or whatever who spouts wrong-headed nonsense without expecting to be tainted on more "spiritual" matters. Geraldine Farraro had it right, but she was on the wrong side of the politically-correct divide
Poetry is fine, in its place, Governing requires leadership! Governing requires hard decisions - even personal ones. Would he still support his "uncle" if he caught him committing an "indecent" or a criminal act? Where does “family” (and racial) loyalty end for a "leader"? After-all even Hillary wasn't prepared to "stand by her man" indefinitely (especially if he were no longer politically useful to her).
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Why Eliot Got Dumped
By all rights, Eliot Spitzer should have gotten a free pass. He is a Liberal Democrat and no one expects a high standard of personal morality (such an archaic word!) from Liberals; the standard is more “do your own thing”. The Liberals set the bar very low after Clinton; the operative phrase is: "as long as it doesn't affect his job performance"
One possible reason for their abandoning him is that he may have evoked their outrage by paying such an exorbitant price for sex, which goes against Liberals' egalitarian instincts.
Another reason, of course, is that there was an “African American” (and blind, at that!) waiting to take over and make more “history”. What a compelling story! It was one that was sure to set Liberal hearts aflutter.
Spitzer was, naturally, quickly read out of the Liberal fraternity. Instead, the media emphasized his hard personality, arrogance and moralizing tone. All these were plusses when he was the Liberal demagogue, going after corporate malfeasance. Even his prosecution of prostitution (normally a dicey call for a Liberal believer in “do your own thing”) was applauded by the feminist wing of the Liberal establishment; it was characterized more as going after “prostitution rings” (big business!) than self-actuating (even feminist!) “sex workers”. Forgotten were all his social Liberal pronouncement and endeavors: driver licenses for Illegals; advocacy of Gay rights and Gay marriage; etc… etc… Now he was just a control freak and a rich spoilt brat, to boot.
It is easier (for a White male, at least) to lose the coveted Liberal label and establishment embrace than for a sinner to be expelled from a religious community.
Offensive Statements May Sometimes Also Be True
Geraldine Ferraro said "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position............." Ferraro also said Obama has it easy because of a "very sexist media." She happened to be right on the first part and not quite right on the second part.
As always, the thought police (in this case, David Axelrod - a hardly disinterested member of Obama’s entourage) immediately pounced on this politically incorrect statement to stifle debate by raising the specter of “racism” and scaring the pants off anyone who might have wanted to support Ferraro, even a little bit. Of course Ferraro was forced to leave her position with the
In contrast, Obama’s “pastor”, the not-so-Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has been spewing anti-American, anti-White, anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rhetoric for years (he is a backer of that great humanitarian, Louis Farrakhan) with no consequence for his spiritual acolyte, Barack Hussein Obama. Only now has a mainstream media outlet (ABC News) bestirred itself (no doubt in a belated attempt to provide “balance”) to expose some of his remarks (on 9/11, no less). Of course, Obama was quick to put out some eloquent pabulum “denouncing” the “Rev”, but only specifically about his 9/11 remarks. Significantly, Obama had no denunciation of Wright’s virulent anti-Israel libels: are you listening, Liberal Jews? Or are your blinders still firmly in place? Obama also specifically did not disassociate himself from the church, from which Wright is “retiring”. From AP: “Obama told MSNBC that he would not repudiate Wright as a man, describing him as "like an uncle…." Now if a White politician had taken such an equivocal position towards a racist, say, he would have been hounded until he paraded himself in sackcloth and ashes and been forever branded. His association would be cited every time the politician was mentioned in any news account. (The NY Times is particularly adept at such assassination by association). So, dear Geraldine, you have it right: a different standard is applied for Obama; also for Jackson, Sharpton and all other “people of color”.
Per the AP, Obama also wrote: "With Reverend Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good,". Of course this church’s denomination came out very strongly in defense of the Rev: "It's time for all of us to say no to these attacks and to declare that we will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological ends," John H. Thomas, United Church of Christ's president, said in the statement. It’s “ideological” when you don’t like the criticism, right?
No doubt, if there was no exotic candidate around, then a woman candidate would have had the claim to the “victim” preference. Ladies, you’ve got to learn to stand patiently in line; gender victimhood is less “compelling” than race victimhood. Them are the breaks, folks!
Oh well, different standards for different people. Poor Geraldine, we hardly knew ya.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)