Global Warming by Dummies

climatehappensyinyangNP

So much for the integrity of the Right over the Left in regards to self-serving negative characterization of the opposition and paranoid, reactionary delusions. Too bad that American Thinker has chosen to pander to partisans and religious zealots instead of sensible, moderate patriotic ideologues.

Climate Change or Global Warming is rather easy to debate once you take the time to learn a few basic facts and comprehend some elementary geophysics. Unfortunately the author of this piece seems to have skipped those steps and leaped directly into making an ass of his entire party. Instead of a rallying cry he has provided aid and comfort to the enemy. Maybe someone can persuade him to to change to the other party?

Criminalizing Weather-related Fatalities

Deaths from natural disasters are traditionally considered “acts of God,” or “acts of nature,” beyond human control. This view is being challenged in a French trial where prosecutors have charged a small-town mayor with manslaughter for deaths caused by storm flooding. The precedent of criminalizing weather-related deaths would delight climate-change activists who increasingly call for criminal trials of anyone skeptical of their agenda.

Right up front we see that the author is hunting snark; the entire piece is a poster-child for projecting thoughts and intentions into someone’s mind for the sole purpose of declaring those thoughts dangerous and threatening. With that said the other obvious point should be made: it’s the FRENCH! The only time the French do anything sensible is when you least expect it; the rest of the time, “ONLY the French!” seems to be a fairly common reaction to their antics, foreign and domestic. U. N. debates and Resolutions are one thing, the three-ring circus of French jurisprudence are quite another.

The mayor, Réné Marratier, was arrested after Cyclone Xynthia hit the French Atlantic coast in February 2010. The French State is seeking a four-year jail sentence for the drowning deaths of twenty-nine people in his town of La Faute-sur-Mer. The mayor’s lawyers describe the proposed sentence as “unprecedented and disproportionate.” After Hurricane Katrina, in comparison, no one suggested that Mayor Ray Nagin was criminally responsible for 1,800 deaths.

Mr. Wilson, I survived Hurricane Katrina. I knew Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Katrina changed my life. Mr. Wilson, you’re no Katrina survivor. There actually were a few criminal investigations and prosecutions relating to outrageous misbehavior by city and parish officials. A strong case could be made for the same at the State AND Federal levels.

In the early 1990s, Mayor Marratier approved building permits for housing developments on a spit of sand between the Atlantic Ocean and the Lay River Estuary. The area is at or below sea level, protected by dunes and sea walls. According to a report from the Storm Surges Congress, the region historically had “low frequencies of storm surge related floods… and low levels of mortality.”

More evidence that the author has trouble relating to the idea of a flood zone. The problem that he fails to see is with modern, rather than pre-1950, residential construction.  A city like Miami planned and built today would be a criminal enterprise by any sensible standard. The entire core of the city sits on an artificial “island” that is a few feet above high tide, (some peripheral gutters flood twice a day.), at best. Eventually, Global Warming or no, a hurricane of at least force 3 will run right over that glorified sand-bar and Miami will simply cease to exist as a human habitation. If those hypothetical modern developers were still living afterwards I think that a criminal dock is the best place they could hope to wind up.

Vesuvius is always smoking, and the people never want to move. How does that make it a bad idea to use our understanding of the effects of weather and geology in preventing an endless succession of Pompeis and Herculaneums? If a Southern Californian Mayor approved an expansion of his town onto a hillside with “low” probability of a land-slip in “normal” extremes of weather said Mayor should be prosecuted if she is still around when the inevitable happens and a couple blocks of housing vanishes; even if the residents have time to evacuate, which is a game of Russian Roulette with 2 empty barrels in a seven shot revolver.

Furthermore, although the mayor had initial jurisdiction over building permits, the final stamp of approval was given by the Direction Départementale de l’équipement (DDE) in Paris. At the trial, the mayor’s lawyer asked indignantly how the prosecution could reproach his client, a small-town mayor with no expertise in coastal defense engineering, “for not having reviewed the work of specialists who have made it their career.”

Once again, please be patient; they’re FRENCH.

The fact that the houses were built in a low-lying area does not prove that the mayor showed disregard for the life and safety of the residents. 26% of the Netherlands is below sea level, land that is home to 60% of the population. The Dutch government constantly monitors dikes with high-tech equipment and satellites, repairing and improving them as needed.

In contrast, the dikes in La Faute-sur-Mer have been poorly maintained since Napoleon built them two centuries ago. The French government was aware of the weakness of their coastal defenses and after a smaller 1999 flood, funds were allocated to modernize and raise all dikes by one meter. Eleven years later only half the money had been spent, and 1,000 kilometers of dikes were known to be unsafe. The parallel to Hurricane Katrina, when the Army Corps of Engineers never performed work funded by Congress to improve levies in New Orleans, is striking.

Really? The facts say that the dikes and locks were stopped by continuous legal resistance by environmentalists.

Another factor that led to the high death count was the inappropriate design of the houses in the development. Until 1980, houses on the French coast had their living areas elevated by a few meters, as is common in many beach communities. The builders in La Faute-sur-mer, however, constructed single-story houses at ground level, responding to the needs of their clients, who preferred living on a single level without staircases. As flood waters rose, residents were unable to escape to upper floors.

It gets even more macabre: insurance companies offered rebates for the installation of metal shutters on the windows and doors to protect from wind damage. The elderly residents preferred shutters with electric motors over manual shutters. Apparently it didn’t occur to anyone that electric shutters don’t work during a power outage. When the flooding from Xynthia cut off power, people were trapped in their homes as water rose to the ceilings.

Finally, Meteo France, the equivalent of the National Weather Service, broadcast high wind warnings as Xynthia approached, encouraging residents to close the deadly shutters. The broadcast indicated potential flood danger with a small symbol on the television screen, which most viewers did not notice. Despite this flood warning, national and regional authorities did not issue an order to evacuate, leaving the decision to local officials.

In the aftermath of the storm, a proposal from the French State to bulldoze 674 homes in flood-prone areas was met with strong local resistance, evidence of support for the mayor’s pro-development stance.

Re-read the section above and try to be gentle. Remember, they’re French.

In sum, Mayor Marratier had opportunities to prevent the 29 deaths, but many other parties share responsibility. The prosecution, however, argues that the mayor’s failure to take appropriate action constitutes the crime of “involuntary manslaughter by criminal negligence,” defined in American law as follows:

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so… which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim.

How about the text of the FRENCH law? That seems to me to be a tad more relevant to this issue.

A duty to act was established when “authorities” warned the mayor about flooding danger. France 24 summarizes: The mayor “is accused of ignoring warnings from the regional authorities by allowing construction in the low-lying area.” As we hear repeatedly, the science is settled; global warming causes rising sea levels, more extreme weather events and increased flooding.

Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, this whole screed was just so the author could ring in his theory about the ultimately nefarious intentions the Global Warming forces have furthered by way of the French being inimitably French.

In this case, the “regional authorities” acted correctly. Adaptation measures like improving dikes and rewriting building codes are entirely sensible, and should have been done. But this does not mitigate the danger of making it a crime to ignore the warnings of mid-level bureaucrats and climate activists. The potential for abuse is enormous. Warnings about global warming are often motivated by anti-capitalism and utopianism. If “authorities” warn that burning fossil fuels will lead to millions of deaths, will it be a crime to oppose a solar energy mandate? Even questioning the science of “anthropogenic climate disruption”, as it is now called, could be a criminal act since it influences politicians to vote against climate legislation.

If this sounds farfetched, consider a small sample of the totalitarian invective coming from mainstream climate-change figures:

  • George Mason University Professor Robert Nadeau writes in his essay, “Crimes Against Humanity: The Genocidal Campaign of the Climate Change Contrarians”: “There is no doubt that the Big Lies told by the contrarians about climate science constitute a ‘widespread and systematic attack against’ all of humanity.”
  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “Those who contend that global warming ‘does not exist… are guilty of ‘a criminal offense — and they ought to be serving time for it.’”
  • David Suzuki wants climate skeptics to be “thrown in the slammer.”
  • James Hansen wants to put oil executives on trial for “high crimes against humanity.”
  • David Roberts wrote at Grist, “we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

(Note the ratcheting up of the vilifications: skeptics are no longer simply “deniers” of the climate Holocaust, but active participants in a Nazi-like genocide.)

The “Call out the Climate Change Deniers” campaign created by Barack Obama’s Organizing for Action identifies 141 members of Congress who made public statements questioning global warming. If climate zealots adapt Xynthia tactics, these statements could become evidence for the prosecution.

Peter, Peter, they’re French, and your list of tin-hat wearers fails to justify your own aluminum headgear.

Partisans: Always Righteous, Seldom Right.

jesushypes

Here we go again. The conservatives are seeing the tide begin to turn regarding public opinion on a couple of the issues that they have been harping on over the last few years. From climate change to jihadists to Leftist bias in the educational system, more and more of the moderate majority are nodding their heads instead of shaking them when Right-of-Center pundits and pols make certain points. They are also shaking more and nodding less to the self-serving ‘narratives’ of the Left.

So, of course the Conservatives(tm) are now required to shift from being somewhat right to being altogether self-righteous. As far as I can tell this is so that everybody in the vast middle who has started nodding will immediately begin ignoring them with great disdain once again. I swear to you, partisan insecurity will be the death of us all; the only question is from which side the final blow will come.

If you want to make a difference as a conservative please, put down the Jesus and step away from the Bible talk. If you express your ideas in terms that even a, shudder, non-Christian can understand more people will give you the chance to finish expressing them. They might even deign to think about those ideas, possibly even agree with them, if you refrain from throwing your righteousness in the eyes of your Lord at them in every paragraph!!!

 

 

The Field Guide to Right-winged Nuthatches and Left-winged Loons

What's wrong with this picture?

Politically Correct = Reality Challenged part 3

What is the difference between the two kinds of partisan, can either be trusted to babysit your yak? Not much, and heck no are the answers that ring in the ear of anyone with a partisan-free outlook.

Again and again it will be seen that both sides share common mental frameworks and have preconceptions and presumptions that are essentially the same. There are, however, differences in how they see themselves, as rebels to the system of values by which they were raised, (or mis-raised) or as a defender of that same, or a purer, system. In other words the Right works the system and the Left games it but, they both are justifying their black and white, dissent-denouncing tactics by resorting to some ultimate authority whether it is a blatantly human-created set of “values” to be rigidly adhered to or a “sacred and revealed” text direct from God commanding obedience to various tribal codes to avoid divine retribution.

by both self-delusion and pathological self-interest is this mythical authority that can be verified by none but the faithful spread, entrenched and enforced be it laws closing businesses on Sunday or one demanding dogs not be walked on the street in front of a mosque, or laws to prevent public expression of religion and laws that seek to “pick someone’s pocket or break their leg” for the “good of all”, or even a few; all of these are in the partisan’s Box of Pandora.

Both sides seek to use their authority’s ultimate nature as a lever against any and all dissent or opposition. Regulations, whether secular or theological in nature abound and censorship along orthodox lines is promoted as a penultimate virtue, the greatest virtue being faith that any abuse that the partisan becomes aware of is a sadly necessary price on the road to Utopia*/Salvation/Nirvana.

*Utopia is a word as well as a fictional nation embodying the word. The meaning of the word is “No Where.”

Politically Correct = Reality Challenged – Part 2

My Party needs no ethics

The first step in being able to recognize the dysfunctions of partisans on both sides of the spectrum is to know what it means to be non-partisan. IIIB DFI / IIIB FI is the basic DNA of the moderate political viewpoint. (I)f (I)t (A)in’t (B)roke (D)on’t (F)ix (I)t coupled with (I)f (I)t (I)s (B)roke, (F)ix (I)t .The moderate mind has no ax to grind on the back of the rest of society. They respect traditions that are respectful of individuals who do not choose to follow them as well as those who do. They look at problems that consistently vex any part of society and seek solutions that remove both the present problem and the broken social compacts involved from all sides. In criminal law the ultimate rule they follow is one at the heart of our Constitutional system of laws and legislation and was best enshrined in words by Thomas Jefferson when he declared issues that neither picked his pocket nor broke his leg as being outside the authority of the law.

This is not as radical as it might sound. Even in this lawyer-plagued age the majority of American law still comes down to there being a need for economic damage or personal injury of a definable sort for there to be a criminal matter at hand. Granted that there have been far too many decisions that have hinged upon “injury” that was, at best, a pleasant figment of the plaintiff’s imagination this is still the hard core; it is time that we stripped away the dross and remembered it, purified it, made it enduring once again. With more and more moderate viewpoints this self-reinforcing foundation of U. S. legislation will assume the prominence that Jefferson would have wanted to see.

There is no crime more partisan in nature than to declare yourself “harmed” by the expression of an opinion that disagrees with your own. Because of this a reliable self-check on the peer-induced pull of a slide back into a partisan mindset is to force yourself to ask “what’s in this for me?” If you answer “nothing”, then you are either lying to yourself, or you have no reason to think the solution or change you desire would be good for anyone, let alone everyone. If you answer honestly and, after examining your own self-interest in the matter, would still publicly endorse it including the fact of your own lack of “altruism” then you have passed your self-check with flying colors. This is all that is needed. A willful process for denying yourself the luxury of self-deceit. Self-deceit, cognitive dissonance and and group-think are the flying monkeys of partisan thought; they will not only get your little dog they will feed him to their cats for his own good.

 

Rabid Partisan Idiots, Left and Right, Made Easy

Politically correct = reality challenged

Unless one has been brought up in a political vacuum it is hard to avoid spending at least part of your lifetime enmeshed in the folds of one partisan group or another. Many people are so over exposed to a polarized viewpoint that they jump to the other party in a fashion that is often as polarized as their parents’ if not more so. The majority of both these parentaly wound-up rebels and those who retain their parents polarization tend to mellow with time; the non-rebels more likely than not to find peace with the angers of partisan zeal at an earlier age. Then there are those who never really feel passionate about either “choice” of viewpoints, the black or the white. These folks usually blend in with the soft and fuzzy “middle” end of the party’s spectrum from rabidity through hardliners and moderates and are little more to the various political leaders than empty votes to be herded with nightmares and platitudes into one camp or the other during the end game of the election. That is the reality of those who control our society.

What of ideology you say? What of the Left and the Right? What of them comes the answer from the voice of present-day politics. Partisanship has always played a part in human politics. I could go on for pages on the roots and changes, the evolutions, and revolutions in political thought but it all can be summed up very simply; partisan = tribal. Any division of “us” and “them” that is not agreed to by all parties involved is tribalism whether you call it that or nepotism or Left-wing or Right-wing. In other words, even if it makes you feel like someone broke your dolly to hear it, partisan politics is always wrong when applied to a constitutional republic such as the U.S. or to Western democracy in general.

Now let us be clear on this definition. If something is Bad(tm), it means that anyone who insists on doing it, well they are part of the problem instead of part of any defense against or solving of; deal with it.

What good does that do us, the moderate majority asks, much more than you are doing now, says the voice of the Ghost of Reality That Can Be.

The first step is to recognize a partisan when you see them. Next you must apply their own misconceptions against them, making them out to non-partisan eyes as the fools and or tools that they are. Then you must offer a viewpoint that ignores completely the rhetoric and rancor of either side while laying out a ‘triage’ of the particular subject being misused by the partisan for their own benefit. Only then can common-sense and compassion, love and reason all co-exist within one, commonly held “platform”. The chaos of partisan push-and-pull laws and regulations will dwindle over the years and decades to a Constitutionally sound minimum of ‘solutions’ to commonly recognized needs, problems and aspirations.

 

Ann Coulter, You Kill Me! I Still Love You But, You are Wrong About the Death Penalty

Guy DeWhitney of Heretics Crusade debates Death Penalty with Ann Coulter

Dear Ann Coulter, you have hurt me deeply.  I was under the impression, since my wonderful encounter with you at David Horowitz’s Freedom Foundation Wednesday Morning Club, that you were a moderate who sought to “moderate” the Right by speaking their language and not worrying about the lost cause of the Left.  You implied I was correct when our eyes met and something palpable passed between us; I believe it was the book you had just signed. Your book Demonic seemed to bear out this concept.

And now? I am torn, broken and lost, all my illusions shattered by the things I read in the article below; Ann, please tell me you don’t really believe in the death penalty!

First off, let me explain my position on the death penalty lest I be hung with a rope I had nothing to do with making.

My central objection to and adamant stance rejecting the death penalty does not stem from the expense of all the appeals, though a case can be made that Life-without-Parole costs less on average; human life is not something that, at the bottom line, should come down to a bottom line.

My principled objection does not come from the fact that there have been Death Row inmates exonerated, or even that is beyond statistical certainty execution of the innocent *can* and *has* happened; a human life should never be gambled by anyone but the owner of said life.

My stance, firm and unashamed, is that I believe that no one has the right to kill a human being that is in secure custody in the hopes that maybe, somewhere, another person might not commit a similar crime; to shed a soul no better or worse than yourself in the eyes of God in what amounts to a marketing strategy is simply nefarious.

When you add that to the two reasons I first mentioned feel that it has to be admitted that there is no real reason for the Death Penalty but as a collective expression of natural animal bloodlust… we NEED some way to sanction our desire to kill SOMEONE for their transgressions against us, real or imagined. Yes, it is rather benign as historical expressions of bloodlust go but, does that mean we cannot decry it?

On to my analysis of of the article:

From David Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine

Cop-Killer Is Media’s New Baby Seal

Posted by Ann Coulter Bio ↓ on Sep 23rd, 2011

For decades, liberals tried persuading Americans to abolish the death penalty, using their usual argument: hysterical sobbing.

First, a quibble my lovely Lady.

Ann, what would happen in Law Courts if one School of Law said that a “tort” was X and another said a “tort” was Y? If you call a leftist a liberal instead what do you call someone who is not brain dead in their cultural relativism but, also not a rock, reacting only to outside changes? Admit it, conservative is not a label that the majority of a society should want to adopt for themselves. To have conservative principals along with the common sense to find opportunities to improve things by changing; what do we call that, if you use liberal to mean leftist?

As to your argument, I agree, they haven’t the moral cojones to make the argument against it that I did above.

Only when the media began lying about innocent people being executed did support for the death penalty begin to waver, falling from 80 percent to about 60 percent in a little more than a decade. (Silver lining: That’s still more Americans than believe in man-made global warming.)

I am glad to hear that about Global Warming but, can you make your case regarding the lack of rotting innocence expressed in the guise of rotting innocents? I am not a lawyer or a politician; I am a poet, artist and engineer type. It is not easy when most people are almost all right or left-brained to be neither; I am not even sure it is a good thing. But, it makes me almost immune to falsehood in the long term. When you love harmony and see the world in definite patterns it is hard to be lied to for very long. If the patterns do not reflect reality eventually the pieces unravel and you can’t help but see the truth no matter how much internal consistency the lies are or how appealing they seem to your own desires.

Short version: Please don‘t bullshit me Ann, I wasn’t born yesterday; can you make your case?

Fifty-nine percent of Americans now believe that an innocent man has been executed in the last five years. There is more credible evidence that space aliens have walked among us than that an innocent person has been executed in this country in the past 60 years, much less the past five years.

Really? Then that would have been a great place to put a link to another article explaining the facts behind your assertion. If you want me to believe you I need some facts, what with all the “spin” that goes on nowadays. Either the facts of the cases I have seen on cursory search are all wrong, or you are using a definition of innocent that reaches beyond the scope of the crime for which the person was executed; I think the bible has something to say about that kind of “guilt”.

But unless members of the public are going to personally review trial transcripts in every death penalty case, they have no way of knowing the truth. The media certainly won’t tell them.

Ann, it was your intelligence that caused the first spark between us, please do not insult mine; facts my Maid-of-the-Sexy-Vocabulary, let’s have some facts.

…Now, a brisk 22 years after Davis murdered Officer MacPhail, his sentence will finally be administered this week — barring any more of the legal shenanigans that have kept taxpayers on the hook for Davis’ room and board for the past two decades.

(The average time on death row is 14 years. Then liberals turn around and triumphantly claim the death penalty doesn’t have any noticeable deterrent effect. As the kids say: Duh.)

Sometimes there is a fine line between snarky and hateful and my dear Ms. Coulter, you habitually walk close to it but, this is one of the few times that I might agree with those who say that you cross; and our romance loses some of it’s luster. It is a human life we are discussing, the acceptability of the Death Penalty in principal, not just in one sad human’s case. I myself feel it does not behoove any Christian, or any truly religious person, to lament the time allowed a soul before the only judgment that is infallible.

Ann Hart Coulter, can you really think that 14 years of not knowing if you will or will not be executed, a truly insane procedure in and of itself in this Hyper-PC world, is somehow seen by “the kids” as better than just being executed in a way that removes the, very slight and temporary, deterrent effect the Death Penalty has on violent crime? Society is the only real deterrent. Otherwise the Islamic world would enjoy the lowest violent crime rates; you would also see a much lower rate of violent crime three hundred years ago when hanging and death by torture were commonplace, yet we find the opposite; society itself evolved less violent ways to get along, the law did not force them to be that way.

There’s a reason more than a dozen courts have looked at Davis’ case and refused to overturn his death sentence. He is as innocent as every other executed man since at least 1950, which is to say, guilty as hell

Ann, Ann, there you go again with the un-backed assertions; let’s have the facts that lead you to say that please. Otherwise refer to my argument against the Death Penalty itself at the beginning of the post.

Don’t cry Hun, you know I still love you.

How to Politically Motivate the Moderate Majority

The following graphics are slides from a presentation on how to focus efforts to motivate and harness the majority of moderate Americans who are currently divided between the increasingly partisan Democratic and Republican parties. The presentation may be used royalty free for non-commercial uses as long as the entire presentation is unedited and unabridged. PowerPoint, PDF, OpenDocument

Politically Motivating The Moderate Majority:

The Art of The Possible

Motivating The Moderate Majority in partisan republican democrat politics

Are you a Democrat or a Republican or a member of a powerless Independent Party?

Is it possible to have an effective political voice not bound by group-think?

In this era of partisan domination of virtually all media how can moderate voices be heard above the din of the self-serving, power hungry wolves-in-sheep‘s-clothing on all “sides” of every debate?

heretics crusade guy dewhitney shows how to get moderate majority motivated over partisan left and right

Partisans, Left and Right, seem far more concerned with securing and maintaining power than with serving any public duty.

Their interests are not in problems solved, or compromises reached; a polarized and hostile populace is their goal; indeed, a full-blown “Culture War” is their promised land.

heretics crusade guy dewhitney shows how to get moderate majority motivated over partisan left and right

The partisans of the Left and Right profit from a black and white worldview; they prefer the public, especially moderates, to see the political world like this:

 

heretics crusade guy dewhitney shows how to get moderate majority motivated over partisan left and right

This polarized viewpoint causes a distortion in the efforts of the various moderate pundits and politicians; mis-aiming their marketing efforts thusly:

Moderate Marketing Slide  (5)

Reality however does not conform to partisan convenience; this graphic more accurately reflects the spectrum nature of the body politic.

Moderate Marketing Slide  (6)

The problem with moderate marketing is that most of the effort is spent on a politically mushy middle; too uncommitted, too uncaring or just too eager to see all sides to ever take any side.

Moderate Marketing Slide  (7)

This graphic displays a more effective allocation for moderates; Citizens of BOTH parties who are on the independent side of the mainstreams are more likely to vote and seek a more potent political voice; most not being satisfied with the “party-Line”.

Moderate Marketing Slide  (8)

Sometimes a simple paradigm shift can make the difference between a slow defeat and a driving victory.

The question is, will moderates squander their efforts on an ineffectual “middle” or spend their bucks where the bang is, at the middle edge of BOTH parties.

Moderate Marketing Slide  (9)

Moderate Marketing Slide  (10)

 

A Guy DeWhitney/Heretics Crusade Production

Copyright 2011

Blogger Labels: Americans,Democratic,Republican,Moderate,Democrat,Independent,domination,sheep,Left,Culture,spectrum,Citizens,paradigm,DeWhitney,Heretics,Crusade,pundits

For Peace, Muslim Public Affairs Council MPAC Has to Show Respect to Reality

Jewish Paelstine Israel as it was supposed to be and should be again

Jewish Paelstine Israel as it was supposed to be and should be again

And over here Virginia we have an excellent example of a seasoned political operative exercising her trade; open-faced, warmly sincere, and accidently self-serving, distortions of basic reality. Also take note of the masterly avoidance of any substantial discussion of the actual text of the speech, or, for that matter the actual reaction of Congress to Mr. Netanyahu’s words. MPAC, the Muslim Public Affairs Council has

It is no wonder Abbas said that Netanyahu’s speech before the joint meeting of Congress was a “declaration of war against the Palestinians.” The “Palestinian Narrative” demands victim status for the proper strategic placement to finally “Solve” the Nakba; Hamas is the historical and ideological heir to the Muftif of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the man who encouraged Hitler to adopt the rabidly innovative new idea for Europe’s “Final Solution”.  Husayni commanded a Nazi SS division of Muslim soldiers, only failing to implement his own Middle Eastern Holocaust because of the decline of Germany’s falling on the defensive and subsequent loss in WWII.

But, after all, Netanyahu’s adherence to the actual armistice agreement from all the way back in ‘48 is hardly a shock; Israel always was supposed to have a negotiated border based on the “Green Line” where, for the most part, troops happened to be when the final ceasefire was called. From ‘48 to ‘67 Gaza was effectively a part of Egypt and The West Bank was part of Jordan; neither country EVER made a single move, or even suggested, that the “Palestinians” needed a state of their own.

Then in ‘67 Egypt illegally blockaded Israeli shipping and sent it’s entire armored force toward the Israeli border while proclaiming to the world that it was the intention of Egypt to eliminate the state of Israel by a genocidal application of military force.

Here is a quote from Judge Stephen Schwebel, former President of the ICJ (International Court of Justice) (italics added)

“The facts of the June 1967 ‘Six Day War’ demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR’s use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF (a UN peacekeeping force “invited” to stand aside, or else by Egypt prior to the massing of the invasion force – Guy DeWhitney). It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.”

On to MPAC’s all too commonly disingenuous “analysis of Mr. Netanyahu’s amazingly blunt and refreshingly honest speech…

“Last week, President Barack Obama outlined his vision for the Middle East, rooted in the principle that change is inevitable, and that democracy, human rights and self-determination will continue to ultimately move the region to a better place. For too long, dictators ran the region, many of whom deliberately held the Mid-East peace process hostage for their own personal gain and popularity.”

Well, we all know how willing the Arab states have been to sit down and hammer out a settlement, right? The following undisputed quotes paint a different picture of the Muslim attitude on the ground I am afraid…

“You understand that we  plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State. We will make life unbearable for Jews by   psychological warfare and population explosion….I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews.”
Yasser Arafat speaking to an Arab audience; Stockholm, Sweden 1996

“Whoever thinks that the intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon’s visit to the al-Aqsa Mosque is wrong. This intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat’s return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton.”
PA Minister Imad Falouji, 2001

“We may lose or win [tactically], but our eyes will continue to aspire to the strategic goal, namely, to Palestine from the river to the sea. Whatever we get now cannot make us forget this supreme truth.”
Faisal Husseini, PA minister & Jerusalem PLO representative, 2001

Peace Partners, Obama said? “Not by the hair of my chinny, chin, chin. said the Little Pig”. Back to MPAC’s demonstration of psychological projection…

An important component of the President’s address was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The President did not offer anything novel regarding the conflict, but rather re-stated long-running U.S. policy regarding the 1967 borders, which both the Clinton and Bush administrations saw as a starting point for negotiations.

In response, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sat in the White House alongside Obama and called the President’s remarks on the 1967 borders “indefensible” and “throwing Israel under the bus”.  Netanyahu not only questioned President Obama’s intelligence in a 12-minute rambling diatribe in the Oval office on the history of the Middle East, but at the invitation of the congressional Republican leadership, he went so far as to rebut the President’s speech in front of both houses of the United States Congress this week.

And, it seems that much of Congress was receptive to this fresh, almost shocking openness and return to honesty in that sacred chamber. The MPAC fantasy continues…

“Unfortunately, this type of political grandstanding is nothing new from the Republican leadership in Congress. In November 2009, after meeting with Netanyahu in Israel, Republican House Majority leader Eric Cantor (leading a 25-person Congressional delegation), said that he would act as a check to the President’s policy in the Middle East. This statement was an unprecedented rebuke by a member of Congress, of an American President on foreign soil. No matter what one’s views are regarding the conflict, it is distasteful for members of Congress to volunteer themselves as theater props in order to discredit the President of the United States.”

A member? hardly; MPAC’s spin-meisteress forgot to add that 30 Representatives and 17 Senators were chosen/volunteered by the VICE PRESIDENT and Speaker of the House to be Netanyahu’s “Escort of Honor”; and yes Virginia, it was a totally bi-partisan group, including BOTH Democratic Senators from California! Oh, and then there were the 27 standing ovations, most of them loud and obviously sincere; there is an element on the Left that claims the entire U.S. Congress is so terrified of Israel that they do not feel they can be SEEN to NOT be enthusiastic, Ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght! Oh, we should also note this little piece from the Washington Post: Democrats join Republicans in questioning Obama’s policy on Israel

“No matter how long such political theater continues, the status quo will not move either side forward. Both sides have entrenched themselves.  From the Israeli side, the separation wall continues to be built on Palestinian land and illegal settlements continue to grow. The Palestinians have recently signed a unity agreement, yet there does not seem to be much movement towards a national platform for peace and the use of violence in Gaza continues to set them back.”

What a tribute to the Imagination and genius of the Republican “political theater” staff; twenty seven standing ovations from both sides of the aisle; no less enthusiastic at the end, after Congress being gently slapped in the face with reality,  than at the beginning.

“President Obama cannot produce a peace agreement on his own…”

Of course not, and if he tried I think that this same MPAC writer would likely claim that the U.S. had no right to do any such thing!

“…And while pressure is on Palestinians to make more concessions, the reality is that the Israelis can end the stalemate now if it wanted to have a peace deal.”

This is the first time I have seen “peace deal” used as a euphemism for national and ethnic suicide; given the adamantly stated goals of the Arab nations and the Palestinian “leadership” no other definition can be entertained by the sane and sober.

Here are some more historical quotes to dash a little cold water on this fantasy called the “Palestinian narrative”:

“The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it an open sore, as an affront to the UN and as a weapon against Israel.”
Ralph Galloway, Director of UNRWA, 1958

“All the Arab countries want to keep this problem looking like an open wound.”
Ana Liria-Franch, UN High Commissioner for Refugees’ regional representative to Cairo, 2003

“If Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist.”
Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egyptian President, 1961
“The demand for the return of the Palestinian refugees…is tantamount to the destruction of Israel.”
As’ad Abd-Al Rahman, Minister of Refugee Affairs – Palestinian Authority, 1999

The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians… but, instead they abandoned them and, forced them to emigrate and to leave.”
PA President Mahmoud Abbas, 1976

“We will smash the country. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.”
Prime Minister of Iraq Nuri Said, 1948

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.”
Haled al Azm, Syria’s Prime Minister, 1948-1949

“The fabricated atrocity stories about Deir Yassin were our biggest mistake…Palestinians fled in terror.”
Hazem Nusseibeh, editor – Palestine Broadcasting Service’s Arabic news in 1948

And now Virginia, back to our regularly scheduled Islamist Apologetics demonstration…

“But Netanyahu’s condescending attitude to our President and by extension our country has to end.  Jeffery Goldberg in an article entitled “Dear Mr. Netanyahu, Please Don’t Speak to My President That Way”, in the Atlantic Monthly, said, “…he [Netanyahu] threw something of a hissy fit. It was not appropriate, and more to the point, it was not tactically wise…”

Twenty. Seven. Standing. Ovations. Clearly Congress failed to realize they were being insulted. Myself I thought Netanyahu showed them respect, by simply telling the truth and not playing games with an issue that is of existential aspect to Israel. Look at this bit from…

THE WASHINGTON POST

PETER WALLSTEN

Top Democrats have joined a number of Republicans in challenging President Obama’s policy toward Israel, further exposing rifts that the White House and its allies will seek to mend before next year’s election.

The differences, on display as senior lawmakers addressed a pro-Israel group late Monday and Tuesday, stem from Obama’s calls in recent days for any peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians to be based on boundaries that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, combined with “mutually agreed swaps” of territory.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) and other Democrats appeared to reject the president’s reference to the 1967 lines in his latest attempt to nudge along peace talks, thinking that he was giving away too much, too soon.

White House officials say Obama’s assertion did not reflect a shift in U.S. policy. But the president’s comments touched a nerve among pro-Israel activists, drew a rare Oval Office rebuke from Is­raeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and instantly became a litmus test in domestic American politics.

Now Obama — whom critics often accuse of employing a play-it-safe governing style in which he waits for others to take the lead — is largely isolated politically in raising the issue of boundaries…

Read It All

The MPAC writer, who, I think, must have slightly less sense than my char-lady, concludes thusly…

“It is not only the left who has been taken back by Netanyahu’s disrespect to the Oval office but even among the conservatives there is criticism of the way he has demeaned the office of the President of the United States.For peace to be a reality, respect for the White House by Netanyahu must be the first condition to any legitimate process.”

Well Virginia, I do not know why I feel disappointed, after all the whole piece up to that point was also nothing but lies, why shouldn’t the conclusion be more of the same? Here is a link to a compilation of CONGRESSIONAL comments regarding the speech… MPAC has to hate it when people actually go to the SOURCE to refute their propagandistic spin-meister/meistress.

Here is a link to the speech itself… Love it!

Kuwaiti Professor Abdallah Al-Nafisi “Thanks for Saving My Country; Please Die in Screaming Pain Now! Inshallah”

Here we have a Professor Abdallah Al-Nafisi at a KUWAITI university speaking his mind about the horrors he dreams about being inflicted upon the nation that saved his from destruction. Yes I said Kuwait, the country whose men were french kissing our troops just a few years ago when we saved them from Iraq.

This video is a comprehensive education for the ignorant moderate and the reactionarily Leftist. Watch this man’s face; see the “innocent” glee that warms his features at some of the things he says. Remember that to Reform Islam is not to destroy Islam. Reforming Islam is all that can save it; I am not the only soul in the West who will not lie down to what this man prays for Allah to make our fate.

What I find interesting is how people like trhis “professor” seem know that they cannot ever compete face to face with the Western nations. They wish for the success of evil, dirty tricks, or even for some infidel to do their job for them; Allah willing. It is this poor self image and lack of confidence masking as certainty that will help us to prevail. Why else are so many Muslims eager to live secular lives with Western sensibilities except when given positive correction from traditional  Muslim leaders.

Greece was conquered by Rome, Rome fell to the barbarian hordes but who did the Islamic empires fall to? Answer: themselves, greed and corruption and infighting did the deed with no outside interferance.
Patience, education and their own inherant self-destruction are all we need to win!

“Islam Claims Jerusalem Too; Mideast: Supporters of Israel consistently attempt to diminish Muslims’ connection to the city.” and Other Fairy Tales

e-s_041

***UPDATE***

“What is truth?” Pilate said, and washed his hands…

Today’s complex world demands a passion for truth, by which I mean accuracy in description, not some nebulous philosophical notion subject to infinite redefinition.

Mankind has always done best when seeing clearly what was in front of our eyes and applying our creativity and will to the parts we found fun, interesting, or that quite simply sucked.  Sadly some people have always preferred to confound truth for their own short term status quotient retarding and delaying the progress of the majority.

This piece started out with me noticing an excerpt, a mere two paragraphs, from the L.A. times. The headline made me pause.  I have always loved history and the mental disconnect with what I knew stopped me in mid-click.

The headline?

Commentary; Islam Claims Jerusalem Too; Mideast: Supporters of Israel consistently attempt to diminish Muslims’ connection to the city.

Los Angeles Times – Los Angeles, Calif.

Subjects: Islam, Territorial issues

Author: RIAD ABDELKARIM; HUSSAM AYLOUSH

Date: Jul 25, 2000

At first I noticed that there was a lot of false information and misleading statements in the piece; then I tried to find any fact that was not false.  And then I looked up the background of the authors, and found that the pre-fertilizer mass descends in close proximity to the genetically spoiled cow.

First I will look at those two, wonderful paragraphs, then let us turn our attention to having a peak at what our intrepid authors have been up to for the last ten years.

Read original here;

In addition to numerous Koran references, several sayings of the Prophet Muhammad focus on the significance of Jerusalem.

From the first sentence truth and realty are very flexible for Riad and Hussam; Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Quran by name and the only reference at all I can find is to the fact that, very early in his career, he had turned away from the City of the Jews because they had rejected him; this is hardly an intimate, spiritual connection we are talking about here since the name is not even articulated!

The only other “source” of historical “proof” of the ancient connection are hadiths, or sayings of Mohammed, speaking of the al-aqsa (furthest place of worship), a religious term.  So, what happened? Let me allow Dr. Daniel Pipes, Islamic scholar, tell the tale:

“The Koran states that God took Mohammed “by night from the sacred mosque in Mecca to the furthest (al-aqsa) place of worship.” When this passage was revealed (about 621), “furthest place of worship” was a turn of phrase, not a specific place. Decades later, the Umayyads built a mosque in Jerusalem and called it Al-Aqsa. Moslems since then understand the passage about the “furthest place of worship” as referring to Jerusalem.”

However our intrepid authors do not mention this, they simply give the evolved version and move on.

In one saying, the Prophet declares that the reward or blessings for a Muslim who prays in Al Aqsa mosque is multiplied 500 times. In another saying, when asked which were the first mosques established on Earth, the Prophet replied that al Haram mosque (in Mecca) was the first, then Al Aqsa mosque (in Jerusalem). Yet another saying advises Muslims not to undertake difficult journeys except to reach three destinations: al Haram mosque in Mecca, the Prophet’s mosque in Medina, and Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

By now anyone who had doubted the historical connection is supposed to be feeling a bit shamefaced; the blows of falsehood increase in tempo.

While maintaining a strong historical claim to Jerusalem, Muslims also recognize the importance of Jerusalem to the Christian and Jewish faiths.

As is usual with this sort of lie it is put in very reasonable terms, the reader expects things to be just as the author claims in his wounded pride for his noble past.  All is not as it seems on the surface.

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/21530 What does a popular Islamic question and fatwa (their terms, not mine) site www.islam.qa.comseems to disagree with Riad and Hussam:

“It is not permissible for a Muslim to make friends with a mushrik non-Muslim] or to take him as a close friend, because Islam calls on us to forsake the kaafirs and to disavow them, because they worship someone other than Allaah. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Take not as friends the people who incurred the Wrath of Allaah (i.e. the Jews). Surely, they have despaired of (receiving any good in) the Hereafter, just as the disbelievers have despaired of those (buried) in graves (that they will not be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection)”

[al-Mumtahanah 60:13]

This was also the teaching of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

1 – It was narrated from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (may Allaah be pleased with him) that he heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say, “Do not keep company with anyone but a believer and do not let anyone eat your food but one who is pious.” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 2395; Abu Dawood, 4832. Abu ‘Eesa al-Tirmidhi said: this hadeeth is hasan. It was also classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi, 2519).

Abu ‘Eesa al-Khattaabi said: Rather he warned against keeping company with anyone who is not pious and against mixing with them or eating with them, because eating with a person instills friendship and love in the heart.

…(Ma’aalim al-Sunan, Haamish Mukhtasar Sunan Abi Dawood, 7/185, 186).

2 – It was narrated from Samurah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not live among the mushrikeen [non-Muslims) and do not mix with them, for whoever lives among them or mixes with them is not one of us.” (Narrated by al-Bayhaqi, 9/142; al-Haakim, 2/154. He said, it is saheeh according to the conditions of al-Bukhaari. The hadeeth was also classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Silsilat al-Saheehah, 2/229 with its corroborating reports).

But it is permissible to deal with them in a kind manner in the hope that they might become Muslim.

That is not quiet what I usually think of as respectfor MY religion or faith.

…And Allaah knows best.”

Maybe so, maybe not, but Riad and Hussam seem to feel that it is permissible to leave the truth at the door in the hope we all might become Muslim. They are really  getting off the ground now, and the truth is far, far below the clouds…

“Centuries of peaceful Islamic rule over Jerusalem, during which Christian and Jewish religious sites were protected and preserved, illustrate the esteem in which these other monotheistic faiths are held.”

This statement could be refuted with a stack of PhD theses as tall as a house; it does not pass even a cursory inspection outside of the literature produced by the likes of CAIR and the House of Saud.

here is a short list compiled in a few minutes:

After the death of Mohammed (638) a small prayer house was built on Temple Mount, Second Jewish Temple site, almost 50 years later (688 to 691 AD) the Dome of the Rock built as well on the same site.

May 28, 1948 the Arab Legion finished capturing (temporarily) the Old Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; including  many ancient synagogues and the Western Wall of the Temple. These are and have been for approx 3,000 years, the holiest sites in the Jewish religion.
57 historic synagogues (going back all the way to the 13th century), centers of religious study and Jewish libraries were looted; 12 demolished. Religious structures that remained standing were used as housing and barns; The Western Wall became slums.

Further, the Jordanians refused access to Israeli Jews wishing to visit or worship at the Wailing Wall, Mt. Olives cemetery, Rachel’s tomb, Tomb of Abraham or any other holy places in the West Bank and Jerusalem, violating UN resolutions.

On the Mount of Olives, the Jordanian Arabs removed 38,000 tombstones, using them for paving roads, as well as construction material for latrines. After re-occupation in 1967, graves were found open, bones scattered. The cemetery had had a paved road cut though; parking lots and even a gas station were built on what had been Jewish graves. Finally, the Intercontinental Hotel was built at one end of the cemetery grounds; the Jordanian appointed caretaker built his house from stones from the ancient graves.

mo1 Here we have the Mount Olives Cemetery under Israel.

mo2d And here it is again after the Jordanians have “shown their respect

The Hurva Synagogue, built in the fifteenth century or earlier and the main synagogue for Jerusalem until  the Ottomans closed it in 1589 due to Muslim incitements; burned by Arabs(1721) it was rebuilt in the 1800’s to become a well known landmark. In 1948, when captured by the Arab Legion it was dynamited as a show of dominance over the Old Jewish Quarter.

Septemer 1996, Palestinians destroyed a synagogue at Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus, since then periodic attacks have been made on Rachel’s Tomb.
October 2000, The Israelis guarding Joseph’s Tomb were temporarily withdrawn and the shrine was torched to be rebuilt as a mosque!

20b

Let us not forget what was done to those Buddha statues!

I want to interject here a few non-Jewish examples so no one thinks this is a solely Muslim/Israel thing.

In india in the 11th century Mahmud Ghaznavi conducted raids on Temples regularly to finance his other wars.  In the early 13th Delhi Sultans carried on a policy of selective temple desecration for “political” ends. In addition to these and many, many other examples of expedient or politically motivated Temple destruction even the apologist author of Temple Destruction and Muslim States in Medieval India, Richard M. Eaton claims that spanning the period from 1192 to 1729, “one may identify eighty instances of temple desecration” that were motivated only by religious zeal and bigotry.

And then there was the Cordova Mosque, built in Cordova, Spain over the former main Visigothic Church; eventually rededicated by the Spanish as a Cathedral.

“This period of Muslim rule also demonstrates that Muslims have a proven track record of being faithful and just custodians of the Holy City. To this day, the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher are entrusted to a Muslim family.”

Oh really now? Virginia, shall we look a tad closer at the history of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher?

A quick Wikipedia search revealsa slightly different tale than one of devoted and compassionate custodianship. For one thing the aforementioned keys were stolen by the conquering Muslims, who then assigned them to the family, sort of…

“In 1192, Saladin assigned responsibility for it to two neighboring Muslim families. The Joudeh were entrusted with the key, and the Nusseibeh, who had been the custodians of the church since the days of Caliph Omar in 637, retained the position of keeping the door.”

What has been the quality of the stewardship?

“On October 18, 1009, under Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, orders for the complete destruction of the Church were carried out. It is believed that Al-Hakim “was aggrieved by the scale of the Easter pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which was caused specially by the annual miracle of the Holy Fire within the Sepulchre. The measures against the church were part of a more general campaign against Christian places of worship in Palestine and Egypt, which involved a great deal of other damage: Adhemar of Chabannes recorded that the church of St George at Lydda ‘with many other churches of the saints’ had been attacked, and the ‘basilica of the Lord’s Sepulchre destroyed down to the ground’. …

European reaction was of shock and dismay, with far-reaching and intense consequences. For example, Clunaic monk Raoul Glaber blamed the Jews, with the result that Jews were expelled from Limoges and other French towns. Ultimately, this destruction provided an impetus to the later Crusades.[16].”

Well, there we have Riad and Hussam’s 2000 article in a nutshell. Or at least the summery.  But that was 2000, what – you ask, have they been up to since? I am SO glad you asked!

It seems Riad has been to Israel where he was mistaken for a terrorist supporter and detained for a while by the IDF, Jesse Jackson Managed to get this member of THE HOLY LAND FOUNDATION released and back home to L.A. post haste. He is an internal medicine doctor but I cannot find any actual ratings for him in practice.

His partner Hussum’s website has this to say:

Hussam Ayloush is the Southern California Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations(CAIR) (see: http://www.cair.com). Mr. Ayloush frequently lectures on Islam, media relations, civil rights, hate crimes and international affairs. He has consistently appeared in local, national, and international media advocating and articulating the mainstream Muslim position on issues. Full biography at:

http://hussamayloush.blogspot.com/2006/08/biography-of-hussam-ayloush.html

As you all may know CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trials.  For such moderates it is strange just how many convicted terror supporters these men have worked with.  But, I am sure they must be sincere – horribly misinformed about history and of questionable knowledge regarding the meaning of the word “respect”; but, surely GOOD AMERICANS both!

…Right Virginia?
…Virginia?