Tag Archives: heretics crusade

Stepping Into The Void; Guy DeWhitney on Abortion

Posted on by
2

 Here we go again! This time it is Mississippi trying to pass a law making “personhood” begin at conception….

This is an update and expansion of a post on Heretics Crusade from March 2009.

Stepping into the void, Guy DeWhitney on Abortion, Abortion Rights and the Right to Life

ABORTION again? I am so tired of this idiocy!!! I just read another article about the abortion/pro-choice issue. Both sides in the debate defend the indefensible.

In this article it was the rabidly anti-abortion Texas GOP pushing, get this:

“…a bill that would require women to sit through an ultrasound before an abortion, described in detail by the doctor, and (wait for it) require they listen to the fetal heartbeat. Oh, and if that’s not enough, they must sit idly while a doctor lectures them with some good old-fashioned anti-abortion literature. “

This idiocy is best summed up by the same article (interpolation added):

“The legislators who crafted this bill have no knowledge of a woman’s mental or physical health when she walks into an abortion clinic. They have no idea whether she’s been raped, had a condom break, gotten pregnant the day before her husband took off. But they are cocksure that listening to the heartbeat is going to change her mind; [and is worthwhile if it does not], no matter the pain it inflicts.“

Of course the pro-choice side stands on indefensible ground as well:

“Troy Newman’s Rebuttal: According to Health Department statistics in Kansas, where the majority of post-viability abortions took place, none were ever done to save the life of the mother. Post-viability abortions are never medically necessary. If the mother’s life or health are so endangered that delivery is necessary, that can be done without killing the baby. Aborting a viable baby is simply done, not for the mother’s life or health, but because that baby is inconvenient, either to the mother or to a referring physician who does not want to be bothered caring for a woman with a complicated pregnancy. Killing the inconvenient is a hallmark of an unbalanced and unhealthy society, not an enlightened one.”

The two sides just can’t seem to THINK for a moment lest they agree on ANYTHING that the other side believes. One might come to believe that both sides are idiots whose agendas obscure reason, compassion and religion!

On one side we have pro-lifers who have pulled a “humanity begins at fertilization” faith out of thin air. Nowhere in history will you find ANY group that believed such a thing! No one even knew of the existence of the egg until it was seen with a microscope!

If God feels we are fully human right at the moment of fertilization why has there been NO WAY TO TELL THIS EVENT until the last hundred years? Until the precursor to the “rabbit test” a woman knew she was “with child” when her waistband got tight enough or she missed a couple periods.

Did God intend all women of childbearing years to always conduct themselves as though there might be a little citizen hiding inside? That is a pretty hard ho’ to row wouldn’t you say?

Also, up to half of all fertilized eggs do not implant or miscarry before the woman even knows she is pregnant. Those two things together would seem to show that if God feels humanity starts at fertilization then He has no problem with aborting them randomly! At least not the early ones.

On the other side we have the pro-choicers. Amongst whom I nominally count myself. Starting from a time when abortion laws were Draconian to say the least, they have “Defended women” to the point that they have lost all sense.

They have managed to get themselves in a position of backing virtually all late-term abortions simply because they refuse to back off an inch on the idea of a woman having total control of her body. A position with which I must say I am in full agreement…but only to a sane limit. Say when it involves another thinking, feeling human being.

Why don’t both sides get a clue and solve the problem? More and more leaders on both sides are seeing a middle ground.

If we look back through history we find that the first trimester is the most common time for societies to decided that someone is “home” in a woman’s womb. This is when the fetus starts to look more like a potential person than a mutant frog with gland issues. They felt that a soul could not hook in until there was something there that at least looked Human. Surprise, that IS just about when the central nervous system is coming alive and the embryo starts to be more than a developing lump of tissue.

No society that I know of placed the moment earlier, due to the inability to determine pregnancy for certain before the end of the first three months. Some waited well into the 2nd trimester and some didn’t even acknowledge the baby’s humanity until it had survived a prescribed number of days and was named. Those were CHRISTIANS and JEWS as well as Pagans, OH MY! People of the same Book that these modern fools say tells them that the moment the sperm hits the egg it is a person with full rights.

For just a moment consider what enforcing a law like that means. ALL women who MIGHT be pregnant (and we can hardly take the woman’s word as to whether she has had sex recently when protecting children) must act in a manner to “protect the civil rights” of any fetus she might be carrying.

Everything she does, eats, drinks or smokes (or MEDICAL TREATMENTS she receives) would have to be safe to be shared with an infant. Unless a woman chooses in this Right Wing paradise to be sterilized, and have the state take note of the fact, she will be required to live a life that Elsie Dinsmore would have found boring, from menses to menopause.

To embrace this concept is to accept the enslavement of half the human race for a good portion of their lives. Under this law a woman who was two months pregnant would have to be charged with willful child endangerment if she jumped into a lake to save her 5 year old.

Take moment and let the ramifications resonate. The only way to embrace this concept would be for us to start treating women MORE like property than they are in the Middle East!

Then, we have the Left dominated so-called “liberal” position. Good at abstractions, the Leftist is ok with pretending the hidden baby is just a piece of tissue until it starts to breathe. The “morality” of standing between women and the very real oppression of them and their bodies that totalitarians seek blinds the Liberals to the reality they endorse at the behest of the Leftists.

Just as “Gay Rights” has been used by a few homosexuals as a cover to “mainstream” unquestionably unhealthful activity, “Pro-Choice” has been used to cover some people not very different from the Eugenics, and forced sterilization crowd and other proponents of soulless “solutions” to social ills.

Here is my proposal:

FIRST TRIMESTER: abortion is by demand. A woman does have a right to control her body and reproduction. The unstable nature of the first trimester and the lack of anything for any kind of personality to live in make this time a GOD MADE grey zone.

SECOND TRIMESTER: abortion may only occur with a doctors clear recommendation to avoid harm to the mothers health or mental well being. A court might well be needed to pass on this but the procedure would have to be FAST due to the moving target of viability.

THIRD TRIMESTER: Now this is the key, 8 and 7 and even 6 month preemies live and grow up and thrive. HOW can any thinking person deny that this is not a “piece of tissue” anymore? In the third trimester it should be LEGALLY a person.

A fetus that would be a viable baby if the mother tripped on the steps of the abortion clinic should not be a candidate for that abortion.

The mother should be viewed by the law as though she was holding a baby in her arms 24/7. After all, if early abortion is legal, and a woman keeps the child into the third trimester, can she really have any excuse to go all retroactive on a viable infant?

Using legal precedent long established, if there is a threat to the mother’s health or life during this time the doctors would use the same criteria they do when dealing with conjoined twins to decide who lives, and who dies when that choice MUST be made.

What is wrong with this? It satisfies everybody who admits to reason and compassion. The pro-lifers will not accept the idea that until the kid breathes it is just a piece of meat with no consequences. And neither can anyone of sense and humanity as far as I can see.

But, they need to get over their obsession with concepts that are neither Biblical, historical nor scientific. The pro-choicers will never accept a return to women being chattel, which is the only way to control what they do with their bodies to the extent the Radical Right need to enforce their view.

Theirs is also a position that most reasonable people, Conservative and Liberal, cannot accept without choking over Western Values and the Constitution. So why not use common sense, compassion and reality to settle things intelligently instead of women and babies being the rope in a tug of war by two sides that care little for either if you judge them by their fruit?

“Total victory or nothing!!” both sides cry while women’s lives are ruined over zygotes and babies who should have rights die.

Guy DeWhitney: The Heretic Crusader

Link to this post!

I agree with the Left – The Arab Spring is likely a GOOD THING!!!

Posted on by
Reply

Guy DeWhitney at Heretics Crusade feels the Arab Spring is a Good Thing... for the West.

Wait a minute Virginia, put down the straight jacket and Thorazine, let me explain…

Amidst all the talk of Islamists taking over various countries in the Middle East I fail to hear anyone speak about how it is not all bad, and might even be a good thing from the Westerners perspective.

It is almost like Christmas on your Birthday if you are a Republican! Please, think about it people…

The Romans used to say, “Divide and conquer“; I think they would have been thrilled to see so many of the Muslim/Arab states enter the “Arab Spring” so they can get on with quite efficiently dividing and conquering themselves.

Personally, I think Caesar Augustus would have chortled in glee to see Egypt and Libya et al. fall to the fanatics, when those fanatics are better at fighting each other than outsiders, more often than not!

Iran will now be tempted to spread itself all too thin, sending money and materials hither and yon, only to have those stolen or “misused” more than they are used to further Iran’s goals.

As far as Israel goes, I do not expect to see any real change in the “no, you first, I insist!” game that has always kept the Arab states from being able to carry out a real war in modern terms. Frankly Israel scares the hell out of them and you can’t expect any solid action in that direction until they consolidate a few loose ends in their rear by stabbing each other in the back in usual pre-emptive Arabian-style “self-defense.” and/or “Defense of the Faith.”

The solidarity of the Din is only triggered by non-Muslims; all the West has to do is to pull back as far as possible, let the chief oil producers sell oil to stay alive while we sit back and watch the show… I am pretty sure there will be very little money in the next 5 to ten year for Western Jihad coming out of the East… if we just let things take their natural course.

We could see a reversal of the immigration patterns of the last few decades; imagine hundreds of thousands of the most militant European Muslims flocking to the Middle East, leaving mostly ones who want to be able to assimilate… if we don’t interfere.

We could see several states that have been, to put it mildly pains in the arse for decades, being run by governments with:

no experience in foreign trade

no experience in foreign relations

no experience in state-level security

no experience in providing infrastructure to the people

no experience in state-level intelligence and counter-intelligence

no experience in POLITICS from a ruling perspective…

And, they will have every Muslim state that IS stable offering “help” in re-constituting, and “repairing” the above; for purely charitable reasons of course! : – )

Now Iran will still be working toward the bomb but, how likely do you think it is that the other Muslim states will let them deploy one? I think they are smart enough, or at least paranoid enough, to know that Iran is likely to clear some “competition” from its path before it lobs any fissionable matter in Israel’s direction.. once again, the Israelis terrify the Iranian Gov.! A fanatics weakest spot is his fanaticism; they probably expect to fight off radioactive Jewish zombies for a thousand years if they DO manage to nuke the place! ; – )

Other than some economic disruption, temporary and limited, that the Republicans supposedly wanted to see happen anyway I fail to see why, like a warmer Earth, this is a bad thing!

Blessed Be

Link to this post!

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

Posted on by
Reply

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 that it *can* and *has* happened; Human lives should never be gambled by anyone but the owner of said life.

My stance, firm and unashamed, is that I believe no one has the right to kill a human being that is in custody in the hope 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, save for Grace in what amounts to a marketing strategy is simply nefarious.

When you add that to the other two reasons I feel it has to be admitted that there is no real reason for the Death Penalty but the 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.

Link to this post!

How to Politically Motivate the Moderate Majority

Posted on by
Reply

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

Link to this post!

Evil, Amoral Sedition Runs Rampant Amongst Iranian Youth

Posted on by
Reply
Evil seditious youth riot in Tehran desecrating Ramadan!

Evil seditious youth riot in Tehran

 Yes VIrginia, Evil, Amoral Sedition Runs Rampant Amongst Iranian Youth; if you are if you are an Iranian Mullah or member of the Iranian “Morality” Police dedicated to eradicating fun that is.

  My last post was about the water fight in Tehran’s Water and Fire Park (abo-atash-park) on July 29, 2011. 17 “youths” were arrested but, it seems no one has been actually charged with “promiscuity between men and women”, but, the warnings extended to being chastised for enjoying water during the Ramadan Fasting period.

I am glad though that none of these heinous terrorists of Western Decadence suffered a worse fate for daring to have fun one hot summer’s day in Tehran.

Link to this post!

Forget Hollywood and Bollywood Ayatollah Films Releases the Hot Wet n Sexy Psychodrama/Musical: HIJABLOOSE

Posted on by
1

Well Virginia, doesn’t this beat all! According to an article in Ynet on the first of this month the authorities in Tehran are going ballistic because some kids had fun with a water fight, and some hijabs got “loosened“! Two days later some kids tried to get the fun going again and, were arrested for acting “abnormally” and going against Islamic values.

I originally decided to pass on writing about it because of this snippet from the very end of the Ynet article:

Pictures from the water fight have been uploaded to a number of different social websites, causing some concern for participants whose faces can be seen clearly, as many fear reprisals from authorities.

This is what the reaction looked like on Islamic sites (emphasis added):

Conservative Friendfeed user ‘Seltoon’ condemned the event saying that it was a disaster for Iran society: “What is happening to this country of ours? Oh, strike me down Imam Reza! Someone [from the Revolutionary Guard] has just been martyred in a fight with PJAK [the Kurdish liberation group] and our countrymen are eating hot dogs, sitting in comfort beneath their air conditioning units and now having this ‘mixed party’ in the park.” Ultra-conservative Friendfeed user ‘Abel Santamaría Cuadrado’ invited those who had participated in the water gun fight to play with fire: “Hey dummies, your water game is over? Now it’s time to fight with fire … Would you even dare to show up for that game?”

‌But anti-government Friendfeed user ‘Ali Ba’ mocked the conservatives: “I’ve just discovered that the entire foundation of the Islamic regime has been attacked by girls armed with water guns!” Most anti-government internet users believe that the backlash against this event shows that Iran’s regime has a problem with people outwardly showing happiness in public.

That was on the 1st, now the photos have been spread so far and wide that my reposting a few will not harm or help any of the poor souls pictured if the Iranian police have singled them out as examples; that aspect of the situation changes something that should be hilarious into something at best bitter-sweetly funny.

Men, women, and children of all ages beat the heat in Tehran on Friday with a water fight at the city’s Water and Fire Park, drawing criticism from conservatives for their “immodest” behavior and dress.

Local police threatened to arrest the revelers after press agencies published numerous photos of the event.

Tehran water gun festival threatens morality and stability. Heretics Crusade says Baloney!
Welcome to Iran: Who says a nation cannot exhibit Multiple-Personality Disorder?

Virginia, what Muslim Middle Eastern nation’s population is the most Westernized? You don’t know? Okay, can you guess which one has a government that is one of the most anti-Western in word and deed? You don’t know that either? What would you say if I told you that the answer to both questions is the same, that the Muslim Middle Eastern nation whose population is most Westernized while the government one of the most anti-Western is Iran?

tehran water gun festival islamic thought police get panties in twist threaten arrest
You can see why Obama refused to support these thugs!

Here is a quote from an interview at Bigpeace.com  with Reza Kahlili, a Former Member of Republican Guards recruited by the CIA after the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

…barely a year or so after the revolution, the Iranians were praying for an overthrow of this regime, that they have been dearly for over three decades in rising up to the radicals in Iran and that have continuously been betrayed by the West with their behind scene negotiations and at times collaboration with the Islamic regime in Iran. The Iranians are one of the most westernized people in the West and have nothing but love for America. They desire freedom and democracy.

The other big misconception that I once again have detailed in my book is about the radicals ruling Iran. The West has wrongfully believed that negotiations will result in change of behavior. They have continuously sidestepped their own principles of humanity, freedom and democracy to negotiate with the Iranian leaders and they have continuously failed. Their failure is due to the lack of understanding of the philosophy / ideology that the clerics believe in. They don’t understand “Red Shiaism” which calls for endless bloodshed and endless wars until such time that Islam conquers the world. They don’t understand that the Iranian leaders take it literary from the Quran “Deceive thy enemy until such time you are strong enough to destroy them” or “Jihad on infidels, killing them until there are no more sinners on Earth and all are believers of Allah.”

Fast forward to 2011, a year after Obama sat on his hands and responded to the almost counter-revolution in Iran with a heartfelt “Yeah, so?” and we see that in a generation whose parents were toddlers when the Shah fell a lust for freedom of spirit and good old un-Islamic fun are far from dead in the land of Omar Khayyám.

The park’s manager said the water fight had been coordinated [on Facebook - Guy DeW]. He added that many of the women’s headdresses fell victims to the splashing water, “but police couldn’t get control of those involved“.

tehran water gun festival islamic thought police get panties in twist threaten arrest
Somehow I don’t see these two strapping bombs to their kids.

All of this gives me an idea for a sure-fire hit for the next Iranian Ministry of Truth summer blockbuster movie:

HIJABLOOSE

The place: Tehran
The Time: 10 minutes past tomorrow

When his father divorces his rebellious mother and renounces him Young Iranian student Jameel Weladah (played by with a tangy flavor by Lahimah Himzir Mohdad) moves from his properly Islamic small town to wild and bustling Tehran he can hardly imagine the wonders and agonies that await him to challenge his submission to Allah.
Jameel is entered into a mutah marriage by his evil uncle with the wild-eyed, corrupt daughter of a virtuous Imam played with a soulless, mercenary perfection by the lovely Lori Mohtrib.
Watch as Mohtrib’s heartless character manipulates the naive but virtuous Jameel into promoting a sinful and rebellious water fight to celebrate the end of the school term; she hopes by this action to taint the souls of as many of her virtuous peers as possible to offset her shame for her many sinful acts and desires.
Will Jameel give in to this Satanic attempt to bring “fun” to Islam or will he find the strength to stone this harlot in the public square by the side of her father and cleanse his honor, her father’s honor, the honor of Iran?
water_gun_festival_tehran_8

This Summer be SURE to go see the biggest blockbuster in Iran…(or face arrest)

More pix of the sinful and subversive crowd of decadent blasphemers:

water_gun_festival_tehran_22water_gun_festival_tehran_21water_gun_festival_tehran_19water_gun_festival_tehran_16water_gun_festival_tehran_15water_gun_festival_tehran_9water_gun_festival_tehran_6water_gun_festival_tehran_5water_gun_festival_tehran_4water_gun_festival_tehran_3water_gun_festival_tehran_2

Link to this post!

Huffington Post’s Reverend Kimball Bears False Witness Against Christianity and Judaism

Posted on by
Reply

 Who would Jesus behead?

This, Virginia, is why I do not put any great weight on my own ordination; any fool can be ordained and seeking God has nothing to do with it; witness the blatant bearing of false witness to further a political agenda exercised by this so-called minister. Here a so called minister of God is even bearing false witness against his own religion, if you can believe it!

Here we have an analysis of the ranting’s of one Charles Kimball, the director of Religious Studies at the University of Oklahoma and a Baptist minister regarding the culpability of Christians and Christianity for the Oslo massacre and bombing by mass murderer (alleged, I think we are supposed to say Virginia) Anders Breivik.

The horrific events in Norway this past weekend provide yet another powerful teachable moment in the ongoing and increasingly dangerous saga of religion becoming lethal.

I can’t imagine how. Unless the good reverend’s point is somehow that the actions of non-Christian religious folk caused Breivik to snap I don’t see the point.  Breivik very pointedly explained that he was not, would not be, and did not recommend being a religious Christian; to him “Christian” seems to be no more than a catch-all term for non-Muslim of European culture! He also never used Christian theology in his writings to base his actions upon.

Indeed it would be hard to find any Christian “church” today, anywhere, that would be able to propound a theology based in the teachings of Jesus that would support the killing of anyone merely to make a point, let alone try to justify the slaughter of children to make said point. Even Fred Phelps and his sad band of haters do not promote violence, other than making decent people wish for an excuse to righteously kick their asses. Sadly, Phelps and Co. have been too clever so far to give the rest of us an excuse to use our laws to put them away… This is the price you pay for freedom.

Reality aside, facts aside, respect for his own religion and co-religionists aside, the good Rev. wants to use this as a teaching moment. Such aggressive compassion surely must be a good thing, right, Virginia? Right?

The murderous rampage by Anders Behring Breivik brings several important lessons more clearly into view.

Indeed, it does, but not in the way you seem to feel, Sir!

First, religion is an extraordinarily powerful and pervasive force in human society. Throughout history, people within various religions have been motivated to their highest and noblest best actions. At the same time, some of the worst things human beings have done to one another have been done in the name of or justified by religion. Religion is a powerful force inspiring constructive and destructive behavior among believers.

Right, but what does this have to do with a man, Breivik, who justified his evil with secular arguments, and did not use any religion’s message or theology to base his horror upon?

Second, we live in a world with many weapons of mass destruction. Quite apart from the horrors associated with chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, we now know that a devious plan can utilize automatic weapons, fertilizer, box knives and commercial airplanes as weapons of mass destruction. Attacking a summer camp for youth vividly reminds us that there are many ways people bent on doing great harm can accomplish their goal.

As far as I can tell that last paragraph was no more than background music for an ongoing apologia for the “free speech is good, but it can go too far” crowd who equate free speech with inoffensive (to them) speech.

Third, we now know with certainty that it doesn’t take many people to wreak havoc on a wide scale. Breivik may have acted alone or within a small circle of cohorts, as did Timothy McVeigh. Nineteen men carried out the attacks of Sept. 11. Small numbers of zealots who are convinced they know what God wants for them and for everyone else are capable of almost anything.

Notice how the oh, so honest Revd. throws in McVeigh, another secular terrorist who explicitly rejected any theological grounds for his crimes against humanity to balance the unarguably theocratic 9/11 terrorists, among others too numerous to count. What this compulsion he shares with other Leftists, to beat his breast and declare “We are just as bad!” instead of solving the problems, is all about is simply beyond me.

I can’t think of any modern religious terror committed by other than lone madmen at all except for the Islamic kind… Even the Irish terrorists who divided on religious lines never used Christianity to justify what they did, nor did the clergy in any way justify or support them, in fact for the most part they were Marxists whom the local Catholic clergy would not trust any more than they would Protestants!! The same can be said about abortion clinic bombers, they are lone wolves and, are not backed up by mainstream theology or communities in any way.

Not surprisingly, many preachers and pundits who have spewed hateful rhetoric and fanned the flames of Islamophobia are now scrambling to disassociate themselves, their published statements about Islam and Muslims, and what some call “true” Christianity from the actions of Breivik.

No my dear wolf in minister’s clothing, you are the one who is scrambling to tar innocent people with the taint of Breivik’s evil in order to further your own agenda  That is the very epitome of bearing false witness against your neighbor! I highly doubt even one of the people you seek to demonize ever called for violence against Muslims in any way; certainly none of the “influential” ones have; they certainly did not promote violence against the enablers of Islamism, which seems to be what Breivik thought he was doing in the dark buzzing cloud pretending to be his soul. At the same time, others quoted by Breivik have promoted violent and totalitarian schemes… but they are never mentioned by the oh, so righteous Reverend.

But words matter. Examine the path taken by violent extremists claiming inspiration from Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism and you can trace connections with the fiery rhetoric of influential, sometimes self-appointed leaders in madrasas, in books, at religious rallies, on websites and the like. There are consequences when cocksure Christians or Muslim militants proclaim God’s truth while stoking fear of the “other” in the minds of their would-be followers.

Here “Rev.” Kimball is bending over backwards until his spine snaps to attempt to “level the playing field” between Islam and other religions when it comes to directly inspiring violence. He fails to make his case.  Show me the violent Christian, Jewish or Buddhist movement, in the lifetime of this nation, that was encouraged by “fiery rhetoric” from “influential” books, churches, synagogues and leaders? Can you think of any in the last two hundred years? I can’t, just a handful of nutjobs who are universally excoriated by their own co-religionists.  No-one complained about what kind of burial Jim Jones got, no Christian thought it important how a lunatic mass murderer should be buried!

Meanwhile, the good reverend goes back to his “free speech is bad in the wrong hands” theme. The wrong hands here of course being hands that are possessed by someone who disagrees with the enlightened view of Revd. Kimball.

While there are no easy answers or simple solutions, there are constructive ways to move forward in our increasingly interconnected and interdependent world community. It begins with education.

Study programs in schools and colleges, churches, mosques and synagogues are essential. Interfaith dialogue and engagement with people of different religious and cultural backgrounds are invaluable ways to dispel generic fears and help humanize the “other.” All across the U.S., Christians, Muslims and Jews are working together to build Habitat for Humanity houses and work on common problems such as crime and drug abuse within their communities. These kinds of intentional efforts at education and cooperation are vital at the local, national and international level. We need more and more such endeavors in the U.S., not only for the well-being of our communities, but also as a way to model the kind of healthy religious pluralism our future requires.

The truly sad part about Kimball’s misguided view is that the above actions are not being done, and never will be done by the kinds of religious extremists he worries about; not the handful of Christian ones and, not the thousands upon thousands of Muslim ones. At most they will use such activities as a smokescreen while they pursue their theocratic agenda’s unmolested.  I can only assume that either Mr. Kimball’s seminary did not offer a real course in history or, that he flunked it.

He also seems to be guilty of the sin of Liberal Racism. To that mindset the “underclasses” of past racist philosophies have not vanished, they are poor, helpless children that must take under protection, for their own good.

Because they are “of the oppressed”, a state of permanent victimhood, their actions do not make a difference compared to the actions of the evil, dominant White Man from Europe and America that is Kimball’s real devil, and God.

He will never compare the fruit of Muslim and Christian fairly, because then he would be forced to speak of Islam (from the perspective of any devout Christian clergyman) as a religion that might stem from God but, that has been mired for most of its existence in a theo/political system of worldly evil.

The path to a more hopeful and healthy future also requires people of faith and goodwill to speak out clearly and directly against extremists of all stripes.

I can’t argue with that. That is what the Heretics Crusade is.

Although most of us were taught by our parents not to talk about religion or politics in public, the stakes today are far too high for deferential silence or casual indifference. Ignorance is not bliss; silence is proving deadly.

Once again, I agree, I don’t think anyone reasonable would try. But, that is not the pitch, that is just the windup with a lean to the left to imply a slider, this next bit is the pitch; a spitball, knuckleball covered in tar.

Just as many people continue to call on Muslims to speak out forcefully and unambiguously against violence and extremism, so too must Christians and Jews openly challenge those who advocate extremism and foster hatred in the name of religion. This means, for example, naming names and identifying the theological and political positions of Jewish fundamentalists and Muslim extremists who block potential paths to peace in Israel/Palestine.

The problem with this little gem is that the Jewish and Christian communities in this country as a whole have always stood against anyone who used violence and extremism to advance or defend their faiths! It has been held a virtual truth that to do so is to abrogate that faith entirely!

Just what more is it that they are supposed to do when the mainstream Islamic community complains about how Osama Bin Laden was buried after assuring us for years that he was not a “real Muslim”?

For me, as a follower of Jesus and a Christian minister, it means strongly disagreeing with TV preachers with political clout such as John Hagee and Rod Parsley. They have every right to espouse their religious and political worldviews. But their ill-informed and hateful rhetoric about Islam and Muslims, as well as their certainty that Jesus will be arriving in the next couple of weeks, has very real consequences.

That is nice Chuck, when are you going to do it? This whole piece reads like it is aimed against free speech and, to me, seems to be intended to gently brush Oslo/Breivik tar on anti-Jihadist bloggers and writers who have never propounded, or invoked, an ideology of violence; yet gives a pass to Breivik “inspiring” figures and writers (in his own words) who happen to be on your side of the war in your mind. You haven’t even given us a clear idea of just what they say that you oppose! If that last paragraph was really the point of your post then, I have to say I think your point fell flat.

The mind-boggling terrorism manifest in Norway will continue to provide hard but important lessons about the dangers all around us and the need to find more constructive ways to move forward in the 21st century. It is a stark reminder that we share a fragile planet where ignorance, hate and fear can link easily with religious worldviews and produce horrific consequences.

Yes Virginia, the world is a dangerous place, especially if you equate the evil acts of lone scumbags with the evil acts of organized and ideologically driven scumbags who are numerous and active instead of isolated and sporadic.

Link to this post!

How to Reform Politics: What Your Politician Will Never Tell You

Posted on by
Reply

Guy DeWhitney's Heretics Crusade: Defendng Western Civilization

You hear it on the Left, you hear it on the Right, you hear it from the Third Parties – Reform Campaign Finance; Reform Congressional Lobbying, Reform Labor Relations and Unions! But, you never hear solutions, at least not solutions that amount to more than “things would be wonderful if those people over there (labor, management, government, you and me, etc. ad nauseum) were not allowed to participate in the process at all!!!“.

And the sad part Virginia, is that the solutions are so damn simple anyone can see it the moment they drop their “but, we have to win”/zero sum perspectives.

How do we reform campaign finance? We can’t, so we don’t.

That is, we don’t reform it, we eliminate it! It is nothing but a source of potential corruption and cannot be “fixed” by any means available to man, so let’s drop it. All election campaigns should be financed from a pool of government funds; if politician A gets X number of signatures qualifying for a place on the ballot for the office of Y he/she would get the same exact amount as every other andidate who qualified for that ballot.

I eagerly await anyone who can show me that this is a bad idea, except for the fact that their side, the good guys, can’t use it against the evil bad guys, their opposition, whoever they may be at the moment.

That takes care of a huge part of the inefficiency and corruption of modern politics at one fell swoop; how about we go after most of the rest with our backhand?

Congressional lobbying, bending the ear of Senators and Representatives, is quite arguably inseparable from a meaningful freedom of speech or a responsive government, so how do we reform what we cannot eliminate? We pass a law making it illegal to pay (in goods or services as well as money) someone to do it for you, that’s all.

Both of these ideas put central the concept that money is not equal to speech;a nonsensical conclusion to anyone who is not desiring to benefit from corruption before it is shut down if I ever eard one!

Think about it Virginia, if Citizen A has 10 dollars his political voice is only ten dollars “loud” but, if Citizen Y, or worse, Corporation M and foreign national R, with ten million dollars have voices that make Citizen A virtually invisible on the political stage; surely this is not what any of our founders
envisioned!

Which brings us to the unions! SO much has changed since the heyday of the teens and twenties of the last century. Remind me again, in this day and age just what purpose do Union Leaders serve… other than their own?

My proposal once again is very simple, organic and even elegant: when a union ends a despite and signs a new contract they immediately disband.

That’s it. If a new issue arises and the workers vote to form a new union to deal with it all is well and good. And when a new contract is signed the leaders go back to work instead of sinking their fangs into the real worker’s necks and riding them until they die, or their industry is killed instead.

Now, take those three, simple changes, all of them unassailable on Constitutional grounds, and project the country past two presidential election cycles; does your mind boggle at the possibilities for real improvement? Does a shiver run down your leg?

Then take it and run with it! The beauty of our system is that no matter how much a pol does not want to do something, if enough people get an idea in their heads the pols have to go along and pray to survive the next election.

All of these changes have one thing in common, reality, they make the government deal with facts and voters, not special interests and corporate funds; and that Virginia, is really all this country needs to be a strong and beautiful as it can be.

Link to this post!

Economics 001 a Remedial Course for Modern Monetary Morons

Posted on by
Reply

Economics is more than just money

Today there seem to be few people, let alone economists, who actually seem to grasp the basic  ideas of monetary theory upon which they build their roads to whatever fantasy land their prejudices predispose them to believe in. Economists pronounce, politicians spout and pundits pund but, how many of them really grasp, and apply, a basic understanding of what money is; how many have a clue how far everyone has strayed from reality?

Come Virginia, let us begin at the beginning; what is the difference between coinage historically (which is not like coinage in the modern world) and paper “monies“, and just what money really is.

I will be analyzing monetary theory without being bound by any politically oriented school of “economics“, instead I will attempt to put money in the same light that Newton put moving objects; money follows laws that do not respect any political need or opinion and I hope to merely describe what it is and what it is not irrespective of what anyone wants it to be.

Let’s start with coinage, a concept that still holds its place at the head of the parade despite vanishing as a concept by the 1970′s.

Historically, coins were what people now mostly think “money” should be, a portable piece of actual wealth, something “worth” just what its face declares. Don’t forget though that all value is relative, if no-one wants gold, it is “worth” little, if they crave it, it is worth a lot.
Cash monies on the gold standard promised payment in hard coin with value of its own.

At first glance this seems a good system, though it does carry hidden “costs.” If the gold or silver or copper in a coin is “worth” exactly its face value the person or group who minted that coin will lose the amount of “value” (manpower and resources) represented by the minting of the coin from bullion.  No matter how cheaply a chunk of bullion quality metal is turned into coinage that amount of value will be lost to the minter if they receive the “face” value in goods or services in return for their shiny, new coins.

This does not change with banknotes; printing costs plus the cost of the raw materials simply replaces the minting costs; remember, the raw material of a coin is the value of the coin.

For a long time banknotes represented actual bullion in a vault, or somewhere in the control of the issuer of the note, while coins represented actual wealth themselves. But, the ability of coiners to debase the metals they used producing coins “worth” less than their face value, and the fact that not all promissory notes represented an honest promise of actual coinage made the system far from perfect.

Enter “fiat” money. Bitterly fought, this is what “money” is supposed to be, though the transition is far from over globally and nationally.

A “currency” based on the exchange of gold and silver etc. is not in fact a real monetary system, it is barely one step up from barter. In barter or specie based economies not only must a person, or society, have the wealth and productivity to fill their own basic needs, they need to accumulate extra goods (coinage) simply to be able to participate in the system that provides those basic needs and services. Then they must accumulate even more if they wish to enjoy a level of “comfort” far below what is consonant with their current efforts to add productivity and wealth to their communities.

Barter ecomonies belong to an uncivilized past. Coinage was a simple, brute force answer to the problem of trusting someone when you have no way of enforcing that trust. Cash on the barrelhead as they said. Hopefully we have grown a bit beyond that, at least in the Western (civilized, modern) world.

Here is the bombshell Virginia, it is so simple that the “intelligentsia” just can’t get it: In a civilized society the function of money is to serve as counters in the games of economics, nothing more, nothing less. Money is not a commodity as it has no value of its own. Money is supposed to represent the wealth and productivity of the issuer only, not to be “worth” anything at all on its own!

Ideally, if a government wanted a bridge built and had the spare raw materials and manpower to build it, all the gov needs to do is print the right amount of money, and pay for a new road.

They do not make anything appear by doing so, they do not cause “inflation”, they just tossed counters in the game that were needed to let the players turn raw materials and idle bodies into a bridge thus creating wealth, not diminishing it! Or not creating as such, but acknowledging, since keeping the money level in balance with the national productivity is the whole goal.

Ideally, within a nation, it should be practical to pay each citizen with new, non-inflated money in tune with any growth in GDP, just like dividends to stockholders in a corporation. Infrastructure improvements (bridges, roads, universities and research facilities, etc.) would only be “unaffordable” if they used so many resources or manpower that they caused a significant rise in prices and wages in the private sector; wouldn’t that be so terrible, we couldn’t build a road one year because there was no unemployment and people were selling what they made as fast as they could make it!

Practically, especially with the current rats nest of insanity that we call economics worldwide, that kind of system would be almost impossible to implement; more the shame on us for letting things get so messed up.

Simply put, we should not be borrowing the money the government has the sole right to print/mint and regulate!!! The amount of dollars in circulation is supposed to be enough, theoretically, to buy all the goods and services produced this year, instead we treat money as though it is coinage and create a pre-broken system that invites inflation, deflation and puts everyone at the mercy of molehill booms and mountains busts.

Link to this post!

Dearborn Michigan Arab Festival Enforces Sharia Law: Christians Be Silent or Be Mobbed

Posted on by
Reply

bugs-bunny-minuteman-jihad-crusade-islamists

Having lived in New Orleans a number of years and having spent a lot of time observing Jackson Square, where all the Tarot and Palm readers hang out, I have seen a great many Christian street preachers at work. Many of them are obnoxious and some are positively toxic and flout the law left and right because the “rightness” of their faith has convinced them that they can do no wrong in the service of their god.

On the other hand many are sincere, faith-feeling folk with a great inner love and compassion for their fellow man; whether I agreed with their message or not, such people were never offensive to me. But, other than the few who flouted the law, like the fellow with the megaphone from Radio Shack who already knew it was illegal but used it for over an hour until TOLD by the police not to use it, only then did he comply; and repeated this tactic with another shift of police later in the day! Then there was the man who stood on the steps of the Saint Louise Cathedral during service and preached (to the square, back to the church, I guess this made it ok in his mind) a hellfire and damnation rant that included just about everyone in the square, including the parishioners in the building behind him, as hell-bound sinners in need of his message for their soul’s sake.

The fun thing about freedom of speech though, others were free to answer back! It is not right to disrupt someone’s legal speech, but responding is certainly ok! I answered a few myself when they crossed the line. I went toe to toe with the megaphone man and with greater volume (thank you theater training) gave him hell for not having enough passion in Christ to preach the message with his own lungs, relying on devil spawned technology to shove his words into unwilling ears. Yes Virginia, I can have an attitude, but I always have fun! I have also stood BETWEEN an obnoxious but legal preacher and a bunch of immature Pagan types who wanted to mess with him in ways that were more obnoxious than what he had done himself… Hypocrisy is never fun to watch and the Square was my professional home and I defended it.

The thing is though, this was all verbal, in 8 years I never saw anyone who wasn’t obviously mentally disturbed or blind drunk every try, note I said try not succeed, in initiating violence or mob intimidation tactics. The video that follows shows something very different from anything I ever witnessed, regardless of the religion of the preacher or the crowd.

I would want to talk to a lawyer but, I do believe that the actions of the crowd, and its instigator/leaders, can be seen as an active, spontaneous, conspiracy to deny the preacher his civil rights! Recast the scene with a black man preaching to white townsfolk about joining his church in 1945 Alabama and it would appear a heinous violation of the preacher’s identity as a human being by a hateful, bigoted mob. The man even appears Arab, but, for daring to preach any “gospel” but theirs he is all but set upon and the mob is allowed to intimidate the man to leave a public space where he has been exercising his rights… If this video is not a bit Orwellian to you, then Virginia, you just have not been paying attention.

Act 17 Apologetics is, in my opinion a bit aggressive but, they come nowhere near crossing the line on first amendment rights to share religious “opinion” in the public square, as such they are to be defended in their rights as vehemently as any co-religionist of ALL Americans!

Frankly, the cops should have loudly told the crowd that the man had the right to preach all he wanted and that if they persisted in harrasing him to leave they would be arrested for conspiracy to violate his civil rights and any RICO/Mob related laws they could think of that might apply, now go back to your festival and have fun, or else!
Link to this post!

Muslims, Mormons, Marriage and Me – Guy DeWhitney on Polygamy and Human Rights

Posted on by
Reply

Extended Marriage and polygamy are the future

Polygamy is one of those issues that conservatives are going to get bit by if they are not careful. Far too much focus is put on orthodox Musolims having more than one wife, when the focus should be on how they control and abuse those wives.

In forgetting to focus on the human rights aspects of purdah (keeping women secluded) which can pop up in any culture’s history, these reactionary conservatives will soon be left behind by this culture’s history.

Islamic Polygamy, keeping women in control

With the universal adoption of gay marriage in the West virtually inevitable it behooves us to re-examine our priorities, and our goals, in this issue. We already have rampant polygamy in this nation, and not just amongst Mormon “radicals”; the whole idea of the nuclear family is giving way to an extended family of choice, instead of an extended family by birth, which is the pattern that the unstable nuclear family replaced over the course of the 2oth century; a pattern that was not new but, had existed for millennia up until that time.

joke about polyandry in China

The bottom line on marriage, no matter where you find it in human cultures, is that it is about producing an environment that is conducive to raising children and conserves the energy/assets of the participants… that is the only definition that fits what a living, dynamic humanity has called “Marriage” over the course of a long and diverse history!

Gay or lesbian, polygamy or polyandry or one man and one woman, marriage is about the family

Gay or lesbian, polygamy or polyandry or one man and one woman, marriage is about the family

By this pattern’s perspective the orthodox Muslim marriage is an unhealthy one, and so is the traditional “purist” Mormon one; because they both impose control where there should only be consent, they demand submission where there should only be free will.

bad polygamy, a master servant relationship is not a healthy marriage

bad polygamy, a master servant relationship is not a healthy marriage

But, there are Mormon and Muslim polygamys that are not unhealthy at all. We stay with our mates because we are committed to them, not because of their plumbing, or number, or to coincide with a particular religion’s kinky code of what is love and what is perversion. As Jesus said, judge them by their fruits. If we are opposed to the oppressions of Islamists rather than their “strangeness”, then let us focus on the oppressivness, not just on the strangeness. Let’s focus on the seclusion, the forbidding education, or work, or even being allowed to be seen by the outside world to be free of bruises or unbearable stresses. Let’s remember what matters, and what is just our OWN desire to impose control for control’s sake, conformity for our confort’s sake.

If gay men and lesbian women are allowed to marry as a norm in this country,the next step, and last step all you reactionaries, will be for one or more men to contract marriage with one or more women. Commitment should be all that matters, and the one man one woman crowd has not done too wonderfully well in showing off that virtue as being in their exclusive possession. Sometimes they have trouble showing that they poses it at all.

All marriage can be plauged by unhappiness

Jesus said judge them by their fruit, I will not be harsher. That said, by his fruit this man will probably hang high, so to speak

Link to this post!

Silver and Gold and Gary, OH MY!

Posted on by
Reply
Guy DeWhitney's Heretics Crusade Defending Western Civilization

Not who you expected?

 

Well Virginia, I was hoping to have a nice new piece this week about the high price of silver and gold and what you can, and should, be doing about it.  It seems there will be a bit of a delay… unforssen events have delayed my having a conclusion or recommendations.  Such is life, when the glittering metals have a hold on men’s souls! Too dramatic? Yeah, you arre probably right.

Link to this post!

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

Posted on by
Reply
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!

Link to this post!