PAT CONDELL FINALLY GETS IT

On the Jewish Holiday of Yom Kippur, we are reminded that we do not pray for the demise of our adversaries.  Rather, we pray that they have a change of heart.  Sometimes, time doesn't allow us to do that, but in the case of Pat Condell, time was on my side.  He never was particularly hostile to Jews or Israel.  He just didn't have much empathy and certainly didn't know some basic, obvious facts.  But most of that is behind us now, thank Gd!  Pat seems to have finally articulated some obvious things about the War Against Israel.  This is worthy of a TINSC post and a note of thanks to the Creator that Pat doesn't (yet) believe in. 

On June 29, 2007, Pat Condell uploaded a commentary titled "What about the Jews?"  My friend Debbie Schlussel used this video to point out that Pat Condell was not a friend of Jews and Israel.  Many in the so-called "counter-jihad" are pro-Israel and supported Condell's statement about Muslims.  The 2007 commentary by Condell was a source of contention between some of my friends.  I agreed with Debbie and the 2007 video gave good reasons to support her viewpoint.

In that 2007 commentary, Condell offered several theses that were not only anti-Semitic (perhaps unintentionally) but counter-argued many of the theses Condell had proposed regarding the hostility of Islamists toward the west.  Some of these theses included:

"... the problem is it's (Israel) in the wrong place.  because if there were any justice in this world, Israel would currently occupy half of Germany."   (Author's note: this proposal was offered by King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia.)

"But Israel really is not really about justice. Is it!  It's really about Jerusalem which is really about scripture and prophecy, which as we know is really about insanity."  (Author's note: I find this rather insulting.  Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people in our ancestral land.  The fact that Israel is the ancestral land of the Jewish people is not merely established by scripture.  It is established by archeology and modern history.  I'm certain my Zionist friends can provide additional rebuttal to this statement.)

"... Israel has ignored so many United Nations resolutions telling them to get out of the occupied territories which they just can't bring themselves to do because of Jerusalem and the Temple and scripture and prophecy...."  (Author's note: Virtually all UN resolutions require the Arabs to negotiate territories and boundaries with Israel.  The notion that the UN has ordered Israel out of the "occupied territories" is not well supported in fact.  To the extent that any UN resolution has required Israel to vacate territory, there is no provision by the UN to ENFORCE such resolutions.  The UN enforced their resolution to remove Iraq from Kuwait.  The UN has not enforced any resolution regarding Israel and the territory they live in.) 

"You know, I think the Jews would do themselves a huge favor if they came to their senses and let go of Jerusalem.  It doesn't belong to them and they're only holding on to it because of religion which is the worst possible reason to do anything on this planet."  (Author's note: If the Jewish people thought that letting go of Jerusalem would lead to world peace, we would do it in a heartbeat.  The beauty of this statement is that Pat Condell ultimately comes to the conclusion that this statement was wrong.)

"But right now, the Jews happen to control it (Jerusalem) and, well, the Christians are really happy about it because they know how this pisses off the Muslims...."  (Author's note: Pat is saying that Jewish control of Jerusalem angers Muslims; as if this is the sole source of Muslim anger toward Jews and Israel.)

"But Jerusalem is NOT a Jewish town.  It's an Arab town and it's time we all started to acknowledge that"  (Author's note: Archaeological findings demonstrate that Jerusalem was founded by Jews.  In addition, census records from the Ottoman Empire show that Jews were a majority population in Jerusalem throughout the empire's existence.  There has been a consistent Jewish presence in Jerusalem for over 3,000 years.  At the time, Condell was obviously quite unaware of that.)

"So please Jews, do us all a favor: give it (Jerusalem) back and help put a stop to all this madness.  The whole world will thank you for it. And you know what?  You will probably end up as the most popular people on the planet."  (Author's note: The thesis that Jews and Israel are to blame for world strife is a common anti-Semitic theme.)

So OK.. if you listened to Pat Condell's latest commentary, he seems to have changed his perspective on all this.  It did not come overnight.  On May 26, 2011, Pat Condell uploaded a commentary titled "Let's blame the Jews".  The title is satirical and Condell in his articulate way, makes a passionate defense of Jews against anti-Semitism.  In this commentary, he retracted his call for Israel to relinquish Jerusalem noting in effect that no good deed goes unpunished by Muslims.  In this commentary, Condell says:

"I no longer believe that the Israelis should give back Jerusalem.  I still believe they're holding for a stupid reason: religion.  And it doesn't get any more stupid than that"  (Author's note: apparently the fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews live there hasn't occurred to him as a rationale for Israel's keeping Jerusalem.)

"But experience has taught us that the Islamic mentality would use any concession as weakness to be exploited further.  And besides, too many so-called Palestinians seem less concerned with peace and freedom  than with driving the Jews into the sea so the bombings wouldn't stop."  (Author's note: Finally, Condell realizes that Jews, Israel and the capital city of Jerusalem are NOT the source of the War Against Israel or Muslim enmity toward the West.  This was a significant change from his 2007 commentary.)

"I think Israel's in the wrong place.  I've said it before.  They couldn't be in a worse place given the hateful mentality of its neighbors but it's a bit late to do anything about that now."  (Author's note: Thanks Pat!  That's mighty gracious of you.  Hey!  I'm just glad you finally came to grips with the consequences of changing the simple fact that Jews live in Jerusalem.  As you now seem to know,  it will require a good old fashioned massacre to remove them..)

"The fact that a Jewish State needs to exist at all, and it DOES need to exist, is an indictment on all humanity and especially the Catholic Church whose centuries-long program of aggressive Jew-hatred has been ingrained right into the European psyche so that it takes almost nothing to bring it out...."  (Author's note: This is a hard thing for a European to tell fellow Europeans, even if Condell is a professed atheist.  It's a theory to be sure, but it's sound and reasonable.  History lends substantial support to it.  I'm not sure Condell had to single out the Catholic Church, but his basic thesis that the NEED for a Jewish State is an indictment on all humanity was one of the first signs that Condell was finally becoming confrontational toward anti-Semitism.  Finally, he recognizes the manner in which anti-Semitism is being used to fuel strife and tyranny.  From this point forward,  I found myself warming up to Condell.)

And now we have his latest commentary "The great Palestinian lie".  With this commentary, I can only say: 

"By George!  I think he's got it!"

This was a mighty fine commentary by Pat Condell.  The guy who had barely a clue about Israel's existence and its presence in Jerusalem appears to have evolved into someone who finally understands why Israel exists and holds its capital in Jerusalem.  I believe Pat is sincere in his articulate statement.  Above all, regardless of what he said in the past, I don't think Pat Condell's holds anti-Semitic sentiment instinctively.  Deep in his heart, he likes Jews even if he doesn't totally understand us.  After all, it's pretty hard to expect an avowed atheist to understand Jews, Israel and Jerusalem the way he does in his latest commentary.  Pat has come a long way in his understanding about Jews, Israel and Jerusalem.  In my humble opinion, this understanding  is a miracle from the Gd, even if Pat Condell doesn't (yet) believe.

White House: US suspending $800M in Pakistan aid

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has ordered the suspension of $800 million in aid to the Pakistani military, his chief of staff said Sunday, as part of what experts say is a tougher line with a critical U.S. partner in the fight against terrorism.

Top aide William Daley described the U.S. relationship with Pakistan as "difficult" and said it must be made "to work over time." But he added that until "we get through that difficulty, we'll hold back some of the money that the American taxpayers are committed to give" Pakistan.

---------------------------------------------------

Well wadda ya know!  Just as I pointed out down the blog several weeks ago, the unraveling of US/Pakistani relations is something the President wanted desperately to distract us from. I mentioned it HERE on this blog.

In that blog entry, I noted:

You see, the real problem is that U.S./Pakistani relations are in free-fall. A quick look at a map should tell you (or anyone) what that means to U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan. 

You might think this problem just cropped up out of nowhere, but it's been festering for many months.  The President and Sec. of State did a good job of distracting us from this diplomatic crisis.  I wasn't distracted and if you read this blog, you weren't distracted either.

Regards,

TINSC

I'll meet you halfway

Since Jimmy Carter was elected President, the battle cry heard from Muslim nations has been "Death to America!".  Every President from Jimmy Carter onward replied: "We're willing to negotiate.  Certainly there is a compromise to be had.  We'll meet you halfway."

Carter
Reagan (Yes!  Reagan too!)
Bush Sr.
Clinton
Bush Jr.
O'Bama
<fill in the blank>

What the LIB media won't tell you about Egypt

While the LIB news media blares out that "the voice of the people" in Egypt have sent some kind of message to Hosni Mubarak, there's something they haven't told you.  Cairo has 2 million homeless people. 

If a few hundred Egyptians want to protest against the Mubarak government because of poverty, there's over a million men "on call" to join.  These are not influential people, but when joined in a mass protest against poverty, the news media can give the protest any message they want.  That's what the LIB media won't tell you.  They're too caught up in their sense of self-importance to give a protest of that magnitude any other message.

So what does this mean?

In time, the protest gathering will die down.  Homeless people gotta eat too.  Life will go back to normal and hopefully the 82 year old Mubarak will get serious about finding a successor who will enjoy support of the military (i.e. someone other than his son).

We're being told that the Muslim Brotherhood is destined to take over Egypt; they're the "largest opposition group" etc.  I don't think that's true.  Most Egyptians are nationalists and while they may support Sharia law, they are still nationalists.  The Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) is a pan-Islamist organization that is imperialist in nature.  When Egypt tried its hand at hegemony under Nasser, they got burned so bad that Egyptians learned (eventually) to take care of Egypt first.  As such, while the Ikhwan might have a 20% popularity in Egypt, there are likely significant numbers of Egyptians who do not share their pan-Islamic view.  This certainly includes the numerous Coptic Christians but extends well into Egypt's Muslim society as well.  

Bill O'Reilly, FOX News and the Ground Zero Mosque Problem

It's too bad Americans can't articulate their instincts. When Bill O'Reilly tried to defend his opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque on "The View" he said 70% of Americans oppose the Ground Zero Mosque. He got kicked and scratched by a bunch of girls until he apologized. (See debbieschlussel.com for more information.) Then some other FOX news clod, Brian Kilmeade says that "all Muslims are terrorists" and then apologizes (as he should). What people typically don't know is that 7% of FOX News is owned by Prince Al-Waleed, a Saudi gazillionaire who proves yet again that we get the best news money can buy. Is it any wonder that O'Reilly and Kilmeade back down under pressure and fail to explain themselves in a truly convincing manner.

So if you're reading this blog and this column, you know that I'm the "real deal". There's no 10-second sound bites to limit what I say. I don't post 3-5 columns a day blathering like an idiot (See http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com for a fine example.) demonizing Muslims. That's not me! I don't hold any illusions, but I count some Muslims as long-term personal and professional friends. I don't believe they're looking for new and creative ways to hurt my fellow American citizens. But I digress.

Here's the problem folks. Whether you're talking about FOX news' talking heads or just the average daily American, few people can articulate why Americans are so wary of this Ground Zero Mosque and all this talk about "Moderate Muslims". Let me assure you, FOX News ain't helping. So let me take a stab at this with the realization that this is a BLOG and I can always change my mind later if someone makes a really compelling argument to the contrary.

You see, in spite of a whole list of stuff Americans are upset about, the opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque boils down to something Americans know but can't articulate any better than Bill O'Reilly did on "The View". That "something" is the reaction of the Muslim world to the 9/11/01 attacks. That reaction can be summarized in three theses, all of which are insulting to Americans. Yet Muslims offer 2/3 of them freely without the faintest idea of how insulting they are. One of these theses is pretty obvious and results in people like Bill O'Reilly (and so many in the mainstream news media) retreating into the "They were radical Muslims" mode. If that were the only problem, few would oppose the Ground Zero Mosque.

So let me offer the three theses that make up the sum of opinion in the Muslim world (Naturally, there are a exceptions, but I'll touch on that later). They are:

1. High fives Osama bin Laden! The Jihad must continue.

2. The 9/11 attacks were terrible. There is no excuse for Muslims doing this. However, if the United States didn't have such a huge laundry list of transgressions against Muslims, the attacks never would have happened. I'm afraid the Jihad will continue.

3. The 9/11 attacks were terrible. No Muslim would do such a thing. Therefore, the attacks were actually carried out by the United States and/or their Zionist allies to justify waging war against us. Muslims must resist. Jihad is how we resist.

Thesis number one probably doesn't need much explanation. We know that lots of Muslims overseas feel that way about the United States. We saw news footage of Muslims celebrating the 9/11 attacks that were hastily removed by news bureaus in order to appease their Saudi/OPEC patrons. Still, the word got out and Americans weren't all that surprised.

Thesis number 2 is the darling of "moderate Muslims" as well as the extreme left. Basically, it's another version of "The beatings will continue until morale improves". Thesis number 2 tells us that America need only concede to Muslims on their list of grievances and we'll never have to worry about 9/11-type attacks again. Unfortunately, this doesn't explain the massive bombing attacks against Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Algeria etc; all Muslim nations.

But hey! The leftwingers embrace thesis 2. It must be true! After all, most terrorist attacks in Muslim countries are usually tucked away in the back pages of the newspapers and treated as unimportant.

The 3rd thesis boggles the mind of the average American. Some Americans are at least a little bit aware of thesis 3 and it's popularity in Muslim countries. We also know that there are all kinds of "9/11 truthers" running around pushing this thesis here in America. Some of these "truthers" are extreme leftwingers; others are from other parts of the political spectrum including (but certainly not limited to) the extreme right. That being said, most Americans are not fully aware at how popular thesis 3 is in Muslim countries. The "truthers" may seem whacky by American standards, but most Americans are unaware that thesis 3 is quite popular in Muslim countries.

So you might be saying to yourself: "Hey! I know Muslims that don't hold these three theses. They know who attacked us on 9/11 and don't believe for a millisecond that attacks like this would stop if America were to suddenly satisfy every grievance that exists in the Muslim world." I would hastily acknowledge a similar observation. There's only one problem: those whose views fall outside the three theses, are too few and far-between to form a critical mass of opposition to the rest. Americans can't articulate it, but we know this instinctively and THAT is why there is opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque.

FOX News, (and other mainstream news media outlets) cannot tell us WHY Americans oppose the Ground Zero Mosque. Nor can they articulate the fact that there's no critical mass of Muslims opposed to these three theses. Even if they could, they wouldn't dare. Their OPEC patrons would intervene and they know it.

That is FOX News' "Ground Zero Mosque Problem" and they are hardly alone in the mainstream news media. It need not be YOUR problem.

Two Rules for Two Peoples (Ground Zero Mosque - Part II)

Last Monday (8/30/10) I watched NBC Nightly News as they interviewed our President. The subject of the Ground Zero Mosque came up and our President did a fine job of defending the right of ANY faith to build a house of worship there. The President said that no American would dream of prohibiting the building of a church or synagogue there, so let's extend the same rights to Muslims.

If only he had left out the word "synagogue"! In that one word, our President reminded me that it was just a few short months ago (March 2010), his administration had the gall to tell me that Jews can't build homes in Jerusalem because we're Jewish. Apparently, American values of freedom and tolerance do not extend to Jews living in the Jewish State on our ancestral land.

One has to wonder the mindset of a President and a country that elects him, when there's "Two Rules for Two Peoples". I hope I do not need to elaborate further on the hypocrisy at work here.

The Ground Zero Mosque

For all that is being said, I don't support the Cordoba House. I think Muslims have a right to build it. They have a right to build it right there at Ground Zero where they can insult the United States. The problem is this: they could NOT build it there or anywhere if they didn't have MONEY gained from the illegal manipulation of petroleum prices by Saudi Arabia and OPEC.

The strategic path to victory in the war against Islamic terrorism is the elimination of petroleum as the prime mover of our transportation system. As long as that doesn't change, Muslims will continue to receive enormous amounts of cash to do with as they wish. They'll buy our politicians; newspaper editors, college professors, judges, supreme court justices, bureaucrats, city councils, zoning boards, corporate executives etc. They'll build skyscrapers wherever they want. At the going rate, they'll have enough money to buy majority shares in the Fortune 500 in a few years.

The Cordoba House plan is merely a symptom of the disease. At best it can be delayed. As long as the wealth of the Western World continues to flow into the hands of Saudi Wahabbists, Muslims will buy whatever money will buy.

There are solutions to this problem in our hands today. They are discussed elsewhere in this blog. Unfortunately, those who are in the pocket of Saudi Arabia have mounted a furious public relations effort to oppose these solutions.

About the Armenian Massacres

A lot has been written and said about the Congressional motion to recognize the Armenian Massacres of 1915 as a genocide.  With Turkey growing ever more Islamo-Fascist by the day, there is a temptation by otherwise pro-Israel activists to jump on the left's bandwagon and bring insult to Turkey.    Apparently, some pro-Israel activists have long forgotten how many times Yasir Arafat hurled the genocide label at Israel for their treatment of Palestinian Arabs.

While the scale of murder suggests a genocide, the Armenian Massacres do not fully qualify as such. It should be noted that those who force the "G-word" on Turkey historically have been partisan leftists seeking to demonize a U.S. Ally. As such, the barbaric behavior of other Islamic nations throughout history and today are routinely ignored by these partisan leftists. It should also be noted that the Arab citizens of the Ottoman Empire participated fully in the massacre of Armenians yet escape the criticism reserved for a Cold-War ally of the United States.

Sound familiar? It should.

The same people hollering "genocide" against Turkey are those who routinely holler "apartheid" and "genocide" describing Israel's treatment of Palestinian Arabs. When you have to stand in the same boat with these people in order to hurl the "genocide" label on Turkey, ya gotta wonder just how accurate the accusation really is. 

In fact, it is because the Armenian Massacres were NOT a genocide that the exact death toll is disputed. That is because unlike the Nazis who CAREFULLY PLANNED the inhalation of Jews, the Ottomans had no statistical tracking in order to measure progress. Thus, it doesn't matter what number you pick: a) the conservative Turkish number of 600,000; b) The Armenian/leftist number of 2 million; or c) the generally accepted number of "about a million", the mere fact that nobody can get an accurate accounting of the massacre is because the Ottomans did not set up an accounting system that would have been expected from a central and strategic plan of annihilation, i.e. a genocide.

There are some other excellent resources on this subject from anti-Terrorism specialists and historians. I recommend:

http://www.meforum.org/748/revisiting-the-armenian-genocide

http://www.meforum.org/991/armenian-massacres-new-records-undercut-old-blame  

http://www.meforum.org/2114/ottoman-archives-reshape-armenian-debate

The general reason by which these horrific massacres fail to qualify as a genocide is because historians have failed to find evidence that there was a master plan developed by the Ottoman Empire leaders to totally annihilate ethnic Armenians.   The charge of genocide against the Ottoman Empire is based on the scale of the massacres, NOT the true definition of the term.

But most important, remember this! If you're going to heave the genocide label at Turkey, don't be surprise if the person standing next to you is heaving the apartheid label at Israel. The use of these words have a common tactic and if you want to be careless with them, don't be surprised if that comes back to you like a boomerang. 

Is it "religious fundamentalism" in general?

The following comment is based on Robert Spencer's "13 Myths  About Jihad".

Islam came around 600 years after the birth of Jesus. It was the Muslims who conquered the holy land in an imperial conquest.

The common myth of course is that the world's problem is "religious fundamentalism" in general, not Islamic jihad in particular.

The fact is that Islamists commit violent acts in the name of Islam THE WORLD OVER. Fundamentalists from no other religious tradition have organized into violent groups worldwide. That is because violence and violent imperialism is "fundamental" to the teachings of Islam in a way and to an extent that is not true of ANY other religion.

"Moderate Muslims"

I think this thesis was originally offered on Tundra Tabloids.

I know this isn't the original verbiage, but the thesis is basically the same.

The Islamic religion in its purest (political) form is totalitarian in nature and therefore anti-democratic. We speak about the meaning of the word "moderate" in relation to Islam and find it as something no longer holding any meaning. The reason for this is simple: many so-called "moderates" have been praised in the west, only later being found to have been supporting jihad (whether by peaceful or violent means) against non-Muslims from the very beginning.

The Muslims we look to with hope are the "modernists", who truly believe in liberal democracy such that Islam should be a matter of personal faith, not politics. And above all, our modernist Muslim allies fully realize that Sharia has no place as a system of government in a modern industrial, democratic nation.

Those who refuse to condemn (restrict) sharia (Islamic law) as being incompatible with modern day society, are the Muslims we take issue with. It is these Muslims who present a clear and present danger to our American republic.

What a shame!

What a shame! I wish the IDF had killed this creep!

>There are other pictures that haunt me. The Israeli army issued a video of the bombing of the Hamas-run government compound, which it posted on YouTube. In it, I also can see my home being destroyed, and I watch it obsessively.<

In other words, ole Ibrahim Barzak lived in the heart of Hamas' neighborhood in easy walking distance from their government compound. He is a member of the club. He knows the secret handshake. And since Hamas PURGED Fatah some time ago, the only explanation for Barzak being alive is that he's part and parcel of the HAMAS propaganda machine.

>Al Dera, a beautiful hotel on the Mediterranean shore, was a place where young men and women smoked water pipes and flirted, and where families went for dinner on Thursdays.

Those days are gone now.<

Ah! The good old days!

But wait! According to Barzak, there were NO "good old days", only occupation, blockade and misery. I'll bet you can find reams of his articles claiming such.

>Samir, who is 9, told me his family has no water at home and he wanted to bring enough for a bath because he and his brother smell.

That's a problem for most people in Gaza right now.<

How many of you really think this is a problem that has just recently manifested itself?

>There were few cars on the roads, and most of those were media cars, ambulances and vehicles packed with civilians. Some looked like they were fleeing, with mattresses tied to the roofs, but who knows where they can go.

Israeli helicopters flew overhead. I heard blasts in the distance. The roads were ripped apart by explosives. <

There are 22 Arab League states stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean. If these states aren't welcoming Arabs from Gaza, it certainly isn't Israel's fault. But hey! Why mention that when the primary agenda of a HAMAS apparatchik is to demonize the Jews?

As an AP employee, I'll bet the IDF has Ibrahim Barzak's cell phone number. I'll bet they called him and told him to get the heck out of the way before they bombed the HAMAS government complex that is in easy walking distance of his home. If he had the courage to report that, the HAMAS might not like the fact that he was talking to "the Jews".

Khaled Abu Tomeh of the JERUSALEM POST has reported on what happens to Gazans who are suspected of collaborating with Israel. According to Tomeh's report:

>Meanwhile, sources close to Hamas revealed over the weekend that the movement had "executed" more than 35 Palestinians who were suspected of collaborating with Israel and were being held in various Hamas security installations.<

While Ibrahim Barzak plays the LIB media pity game, he knows darn well that HAMAS continues to insist that they will NOT stop attacking Israel; they will NOT end the war. Barzak knows that HAMAS is bragging about sacrificing their lives and the lives of Gaza's citizens in the holy war against the Jews. HAMAS doesn't care who they murder. Too bad Ibrahim Barzak is unwilling to report it.

HAMAS propagandists like Ibrahim Barzak deserve to be treated like a combatant.

Gaza

It is long forgotten that Israel evacuated Gaza in 2005 under diplomatic pressure from the United States.

If the United States doesn't back Israel's defense from artillery attacks emanating from Gaza, we can forget about Israel ever again making territorial concessions to the Arabs on America' s behalf. Keep that in mind when you're scratching your head wondering why the United States and others are backing Israel in the current war.

I AM A PALESTINIAN!

Once upon a time, Israel and the US had a policy of not talking to terrorists. Now they're talking to Al-Jazeera.

Who are the Palestinians? There has never, in the history of humankind, been an Arab nation of "Palestine".

Palestine is a region. The modern State of Israel is part of that region. JEWS ARE PALESTINIANS TOO!

Yet for some reason, everybody has bought into the "no Jews allowed" definition of "Palestinian"; even the Likud.

It's time we spoke up and ended this sham that "Palestine" is an exclusive Arab land where Jews have no national rights.

The left (including the Israeli left) has long held fast to the belief that the War Against Israel is a competition between two national liberation movements. This is a LIE.

The War Against Israel is between one national liberation movement (Zionist) against a totalitarian, imperialist Islamo-Fascist movement which seeks to conquer all lands once ruled by Muslims and then onward to rule the world.

Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish People. The Jews established a nation in Palestine called Israel. The Arabs established a nation in Palestine called Jordan.

Therefore:

I AM A PALESTINIAN! I AM A JEW! I AM A ZIONIST!

It is time to end the "no Jews allowed" aspect of defining a "Palestinian".

I am sick and tired of people talking of the "Palestinians" expecting everyone to understand that they're talking EXCLUSIVELY about Arabs.

Palestinian rocket kills 2 Gaza girls. Nobody cares

GAZA (Reuters) – A rocket apparently fired by Palestinians on Friday struck a house in the Gaza Strip, killing two Palestinian sisters aged five and 13, Palestinian medics said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081226/wl_nm/us_palestinians_israel_rocket

As you can see from the link, Reuters ran a very brief story about this. Naturally, the story got little play in the mainstream media. How typical!

Please keep this incident in mind over the next weeks. If Israel sends its armed forces into Gaza to end the indiscriminate shelling of its civilian centers, you're likely to hear every imaginable "human interest story" of "Palestinian suffering" described in elaborate detail.

This story stands out as typical of what we see when Arabs kill Arabs.

2008 Mumbai Attack Was Directed Against Everyone

As the dust settles on the devastating terrorist attack on Mumbai, India I couldn't help but notice some things in the news coverage I found a bit disturbing. By now, the death toll is well over 160 people and the attacks were quite wide-spread across the city including two major luxury hotels.

Yet there seemed to me to be disproportional attention by the mainstream media on the attack on the Chabad House in Mumbai. Personally, I was deeply saddened by the attack and murder of the Chabad House staff and residents. I participate in our local Chabad House activities from time to time and have the utmost respect for the Chabad organization; what they stand for and the work they do.

But to hear it from the mainstream news media, you might think the only people who got killed in this devastating attack were the 6 people in the Chabad House. So much attention was paid to the attack on the Chabad House, you better not have been quickly surfing your TV channels before you heard about the rest of the story. As the death toll climbed past 150 people, 50% of the news covered the attack on the Chabad house. Adding insult to injury, AP, ABC and CNN used the pejorative term "ultra-Orthodox" to describe Chassidic Jews. So not only did the mainstream media focus on the Chassidic Jewish victims, several major outlets found it necessary to insult them. That REALLY made me mad!

First of all, there is no such thing as "ultra-Orthodox Judaism". Here in America, there's Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Judaism. There is also "reconstructionist Judaism", but it's pretty much another form of Reform Judaism. The term "ultra-Orthodox" was invented by a liberal media (and secular atheist Jews) to imply that religiously observant Jews are political extremists. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is absolutely NO relation between Orthodox Judaism and political extremism. If anything, the most politically extreme Jews in history were those who were atheist and openly fought for Communism. I shall not digress on this issue further except to repeat that the adjective "ultra-Orthodox" is an insulting way to describe Jews. Indeed, the LIB media outlets who used this pejorative term probably wanted to bait people like me into a digressive discussion on the matter.

That would be a smart thing! I say this because I'm convinced that the mainstream media's coverage of the Mumbai attack left one thinking that it was an attack against Jews. While over 155 people were lying dead, 50% of the news coverage centered around the "Jewish Center" or the "Orthodox Jewish Center" or worse. I realize my "50%" is an unscientific number, but I'm hoping some of my friends at CAMERA can come up with some quantitative data on the issue. I won't be ashamed to find out I've exaggerated a little. With 155 people known dead and 6 of them known to be in the Mumbai Chabad House, the math works out to be 3.87% of the casualties during the three-day period of 24/7 news coverage. During these three days, it is impossible that news reporting of the dead people in the Chabad house comprised 3.87% of the total reporting of the Mumbai massacre.

So you might be wondering: What's TINSC's beef about this?

My problem with this is simple:

The mainstream media wants people to think that Islamo-Fascism, Islamic extremism,

Islamism, or whatever you want to call it, is directed at the Jews. If not for the existence of

the Jewish State, there would be no grievance feeding these heinous terrorist attacks.

Folks, if you believe that mainstream media myth, we are all in for big trouble. Islamo-Fascism is an imperialistic totalitarian movement similar to many born in the 20th century. Anti-Semitism is a prime component because it easily disarms the general population. The message is: "You need not fear us. We only hate the Jews."

As the general public falls for the lie, resistance to the totalitarian movement weakens because the average person feels un-threatened. Once the totalitarian reign is established, the rest of the public suddenly realizes a very unpleasant fact: "Uh oh! I guess they don't like US either". By then it's too late.

Media reporting is feeding the lie!

While the vicious attacks on Mumbai were going on, Iraq was subject to a rocket attack and Pakistan was hit by a suicide bombing; neither received much news attention. The imperialistic movement to make Sharia the supreme law of the land is directed toward EVERYONE, Muslims included. This is the essence of the problem. Regardless of which form of Sharia Islamo-Fascists wage terrorism for, the attack is directed at EVERYONE.

Fortunately, most Americans understand this. Unfortunately, this understanding has not translated into reporting from the mainstream news media that continues to report disproportionately on Islamo-Fascist attacks against Jews. It's a dereliction of duty for the mainstream news media to report Islamo-Fascist terrorist attacks this way whether the message is made implicitly or explicitly.

About Colin Powell

A week after he left office, former Sec. of State Colin Powell was personally presented with a brand new Jaguar by Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar. As Bandar once explained: "If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office, you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office."

Sen. Clinton - Actions Speak Louder Than Words

I'm afraid, it seems like Ms Rodham must have a different definition of "we" and "everything" Last week, she cancelled out of a ralley at the UN (in her home state) against President Ahmadinijad's visit to the UN. Sen. Clinton's spokesman said she was concerned that the rally had become a "partisan political event" - although her own participation would have ensured the opposite. So what does this tell us of Sen. Clinton's recent remarks at the AIPAC Policy Conference last June? I believe it tells us that she is an insincere politician who doesn't really care if Iran incinerates Israel.

Let us review what Sen. Clinton said at the AIPAC Policy Conference. Shall we?

>The second principle is simple one; no nuclear weapons for Iran. Iran is a country whose leaders, whose President denies the Holocaust. He defies the international community. His government trains, funds, and arms Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists in attacking Israeli civilians. He threatens to destroy Israel; just this week he said that Israel is about to die and will soon be erased. We can never let Iran obtain nuclear weapons. The next President will have to deal with the Iranian challenge from day one. This is not just in Israel’s interest; it is in America’s interest and the world’s interest and this is a threat that I take very seriously. I’m a co-sponsor of the Iran Nonproliferation Act. I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is--a terrorist organization.

I have also said that should Iran ever--ever contemplate using nuclear weapons against Israel they must understand what the consequences will be to them. BUT WE MUST DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO PREVENT SUCH AN UNTHINKABLE DAY FROM EVER HAPPENING (emphasis mine) and the best way to do that is to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons in the first place.<

Apparently, doing "everythingin our power" didn't include attending a rally against Iran's nuclear weapons program in her home state.

The Strategic Path To Victory In The War On Terror

Remember folks! You heard it here first.

THE STRATEGIC PATH TO VICTORY IN THE WAR ON TERROR IS THE ELIMINATION OF PETROLEUM AS THE PRIME MOVER OF OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.

There! Read that. Remember where you read it and quote your source often.

I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Robert Zubrin recently at the 2008 AIPAC policy conference. We hit it off right on the spot. I merely told him what I wrote above in bold letters. Dr. Zubrin commented that he ALMOST agreed. He repeated what I said and added one word. In Dr. Zubrin's opinion: "The strategic path to victory in the war on terror is the elimination of petroleum as the ONLY prime mover of our transportation system."

I'll let you decide whether that's "splitting hairs". I like his attitude. Besides! He's done a TON more research into this than I have. I've been merely following ethanol vehicle fuels because I grew up in Illinois farm country. I've long been convinced that America could produce enough ethanol to power our motor vehicle fleet; the largest in the world. Dr. Zubrin has written a book that all but proves it out.

The book is ENERGY VICTORY and it is presented at:

http://www.energyvictory.net/

Of particular importance, PLEASE review the on-line slide show highlighting his thesis.

http://www.energyvictory.net/energy_victory_Presentation.htm

In short, Dr. Zubrin's thesis is that we could create competition in the motor vehicle fuel business by mandating that all cars sold in the US be flex fuel.

I concur with Dr. Zubrin. Giving American automobile fuel consumers CHOICE will cause competition that will break OPEC's absolute control over motor vehicle fuel supply. Make OPEC nations work for a living, competing against the rest of the world which can grow something that can be made into ethanol. This competition will cause a significant shrinkage in the capacity of the money pipeline to international terrorism.

We're not limited to corn. We're not even limited to ethanol as methanol is even cheaper to make. Methanol is still used in American open wheel auto racing.

I don't care how you add it up! Petroleum selling over $100/barrel makes ethanol competitive. Whether you use corn, sugar cane, coal, wood, or something we're currently throwing away, you can make alcahol fuels out of it.

There is even great potential for biodiesel. CO2 from power plants can be pumped into ponds growing oil-rich species of algea. The oil can be extracted and used for diesel fuel. There is a paper from the University of New Hampshire on the web that is somewhat dated, but interesting reading.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Now I know a lot of you are hearing all this talk about how ethanol is robbing the food supply. This is ridiculous, but apparently not obvious to all.

Let me assure you, there is compelling evidence to lead any rational person to know that ethanol is not robbing the food supply. Rather, it is increasing the food supply. Grocery prices have risen because trucking prices have risen due to high petroleum prices and more specifically, diesel fuel prices.

Nonetheless, this is explained by Dr. Zubrin and any number of other people as well as the USDA.

Dr. Zubrin writes:

Here are the facts. In the last five years, despite the nearly threefold growth of the corn ethanol industry—actually, because of it—the amount of corn grown in the United States has vastly increased. The U.S. corn crop grew by 45 percent, the production of distillers grain (a high-value animal feed made from the protein saved from the corn used for ethanol) quadrupled, and the net U.S. corn production of food for humans and feed for animals increased 34 percent.

Contrary to claims that farmers have cut other crops to grow more corn, U.S. soybean plantings this year are expected to be up 18 percent and wheat plantings up 6 percent. U.S. farm exports are up 23 percent over last year. America is clearly doing its share in feeding the world.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels

So much for the food dis-information campaign. There is also another insidious myth floating around about ethanol. This myth says that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the energy contained in the fuel. Even if this were the case, ethanol would still be a viable motor vehicle fuel for several reasons. It's not just a matter of whether we gain or lose energy. It's a matter of whether we can put it in our gas tanks and run our cars. The real fact is that modern farming and distilling methods have clearly made ethanol a net energy gain

This is best articulated by the American Coalition for Ethanol:

What does "net energy balance" mean?

What is ethanol's energy balance? Net energy balance is a term used to describe how much energy is needed to produce a product versus how much energy that product provides. Two professors that are long-time critics of ethanol claim that ethanol has a negative energy balance, but this is simply not true and has been debunked again and again by science. Scientific study after study has proven ethanol's energy balance to be positive. The latest USDA figures show that ethanol made from the drymill process provides at least 77% more energy as a fuel than the process it takes to make it. The bottom line is that it takes about 35,000 BTUs (British Thermal Units) of energy to create a gallon of ethanol, and that gallon of ethanol contains at least 77,000 BTUs of energy. The net energy balance of ethanol is simply a non-issue.

http://ethanol.org/index.php?id=81&parentid=25#MISCONCEPTIONS

The raw price of ethanol is currently less than petroleum. It's just a matter of automakers adding an average of $100 to the cost of a vehicle to make it flex fuel. The economics will take care of themselves. In a few years, we would have millions of flex fuel vehicles on the road and fueling stations would have to carry ethanol/methanol/E85 because their raw cost is way lower than the present market price for petroleum products.

This is such a no-brainer! Brazil has already done it! We need not feel like we're driving in the dark without our lights on. Besides, if Brazil can do it, certainly the United States of America, land of the free - home of the brave, can do it.

The American motor vehicle consumer deserves CHOICE in motor vehicle fuels. The small scale of ethanol production in the U.S. over the past 3 years has proven itself. Depending on market conditions, ethanol may or may not be competitive. With flex-fuel vehicles that will not be a problem. We will always be able to choose the cheapest fuel.

Thus, whether or not ethanol completely replaces gasoline or not, the fuel supply for America's motor vehicle fleet can be secured with ethanol and other alcahol fuels. Once OPEC no longer controls the cost of our transportation, the money pipeline to terrorism shrinks significantly.

*UPDATE*  (10/28/12)

I have added the web site Open Fuel Standard to the "My Blog List".  The blog is "... the central action hub for all things concerning the vitally important legislation, The Open Fuel Standard Act.
 I encourage my readers to follow this blog. - TINSC

 
 

INDEPENDENCE DAY

In keeping with the tradition of our founding fathers, let us remember their reason for seeking independece: TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION IS TYRANNY.

So today, let us all rebel against the evil King from a far off land who has mercilously taxed the American people through an illegal OPEC cartel: King Abdullah. And if you or anyone thinks that the situation is different or the stakes aren't the same, think again! America is being taxed by an evil King from far off shores and it is our duty to rebel and set America free again.

The Arab-Israeli war explained in brief