Legendary actress Elizabeth Taylor died yesterday, March 23, 2011. In the 24 hours of eulogies that went non-stop through the day, there was one constant throughout Taylor's life that was never mentioned: Elizabeth Taylor was an ardent Zionist.
Elizabeth Taylor was a fickle woman for sure. She fell in and out of love with men; 8 husbands. She fell off and on the wagon. She gained, dropped and gained back weight. Yet the one constant throughout her life was her support of Israel and (I believe) a sincere commitment to Reform Judaism and love of Gd.
The LIB media won't tell you this. It's an embarrassment to the Saudi petro-dollar stockholders and advertisers.
I just thought you should know.
Sincerely,
There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)
P.S. Don't hold your breath waiting for conservative news media (i.e. FOX News) to tell you this either. Same stockholders; same advertisers.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
Japan Quake/Tsunami; Iran Nukes
If you're like me, you've probably been following the rescue effort being mounted in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan recently. I encourage you to donate money to the rescue effort. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee has established a Japan/Pacific Disaster Relief fund. I encourage you to make a donation immediately.
I pray to Gd in heaven, the Japanese people are not further harmed by the damage done to their nuclear power plants. So far, so good! The containment buildings haven't been breached. Though several Japanese nuclear plant workers have made heroic sacrifices for the public good, the likelihood of a Chernobyl scenario still looks remote in the short term. Cleaning up the mess might take years and cost a lot of money, but so far the public appears safe. While it can't be comfortable living in evacuation, at least those living near the effected reactors enjoy the supreme gift of life and will ultimately recover.
Unfortunately, this is not the purpose of my column. Moreover, I have very mixed feelings about leveraging a current event tragedy like this to make a political statement on an unrelated matter. Japan needs our help, but something else needs to be said.
You see, in the wake of the Japan quake and tsunami, there has been a lot of discussion among all nations about the safety of their civilian nuclear power plants. Some nations that were considering building new plants are thinking twice. Americans are wondering if "it could happen here" and what we're doing to make certain our commercial nuclear power plants can withstand natural disasters. Suddenly, everybody seems concerned about nuclear safety EXCEPT IRAN and that's the point of this post.
For years Iran has given mixed signals about their nuclear "program". Frankly, I think the Iranian nuclear program is a weapons program and they do little to disguise it. Nonetheless, there are many people in denial about this.
Now we have virtually all industrialized nations worried about the safety of their nuclear power plants. For some strange reason, no such public discussion seems to emanate from Iran. If Iran's nuclear research program were really for "peaceful purposes', I would think they'd be talking about increasing safety and foregoing the construction of new plants. Don't hold your breath, folks!
Iran's nuclear program is for making weapons to attack America. If you don't believe me, you'll know soon enough. When all the industrialized nations of the world re-examine their civilian nuclear power production facilities, I fully expect Iran to forge ahead in their nuclear research as if nothing at all has happened in Japan. When that happens, there will be no longer any doubt as to the purpose of Iran's nuclear research program. If my prediction is correct, all question as to the intent of Iran's nuclear research program should be evident for all to see.
So keep those Japan/Pacific donations coming in folks! Just remember! This won't slow down the Iranian nuclear weapons program. For Iran, the nuclear jihad must go on.
Sincerely,
There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)
I pray to Gd in heaven, the Japanese people are not further harmed by the damage done to their nuclear power plants. So far, so good! The containment buildings haven't been breached. Though several Japanese nuclear plant workers have made heroic sacrifices for the public good, the likelihood of a Chernobyl scenario still looks remote in the short term. Cleaning up the mess might take years and cost a lot of money, but so far the public appears safe. While it can't be comfortable living in evacuation, at least those living near the effected reactors enjoy the supreme gift of life and will ultimately recover.
Unfortunately, this is not the purpose of my column. Moreover, I have very mixed feelings about leveraging a current event tragedy like this to make a political statement on an unrelated matter. Japan needs our help, but something else needs to be said.
You see, in the wake of the Japan quake and tsunami, there has been a lot of discussion among all nations about the safety of their civilian nuclear power plants. Some nations that were considering building new plants are thinking twice. Americans are wondering if "it could happen here" and what we're doing to make certain our commercial nuclear power plants can withstand natural disasters. Suddenly, everybody seems concerned about nuclear safety EXCEPT IRAN and that's the point of this post.
For years Iran has given mixed signals about their nuclear "program". Frankly, I think the Iranian nuclear program is a weapons program and they do little to disguise it. Nonetheless, there are many people in denial about this.
Now we have virtually all industrialized nations worried about the safety of their nuclear power plants. For some strange reason, no such public discussion seems to emanate from Iran. If Iran's nuclear research program were really for "peaceful purposes', I would think they'd be talking about increasing safety and foregoing the construction of new plants. Don't hold your breath, folks!
Iran's nuclear program is for making weapons to attack America. If you don't believe me, you'll know soon enough. When all the industrialized nations of the world re-examine their civilian nuclear power production facilities, I fully expect Iran to forge ahead in their nuclear research as if nothing at all has happened in Japan. When that happens, there will be no longer any doubt as to the purpose of Iran's nuclear research program. If my prediction is correct, all question as to the intent of Iran's nuclear research program should be evident for all to see.
So keep those Japan/Pacific donations coming in folks! Just remember! This won't slow down the Iranian nuclear weapons program. For Iran, the nuclear jihad must go on.
Sincerely,
There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, February 05, 2011
A Unique View of the Egypt "Crisis" from Israel
Having been in Israel the past week, we've all been following the Egyptian protests in the news. While I can easily watch CNN, FOX, Sky News etc, it's far more interesting to watch the Israeli news and commentary.
Israel is one of those countries where people rarely agree on anything. Yet there are two things Israelis agree on this week:
1. They don't know where these protests are going to lead.
2. Whatever Israelis offer in the way of advice to Egyptians will be resented and ignored.
The mood about is one of curiosity. Nobody seems to be too worried. Israeli tourists, businessmen and families of diplomats bailed out of Egypt the same night we arrived here (Jan 30, 2011). There's nobody left to worry about.
So don't listen to those talking heads on the so-called "News Networks". They're all rather self absorbed and don't know what they're talking about. All they know is that it's easier to milk an old story than to find a new one.
Regards,
TINSC
Israel is one of those countries where people rarely agree on anything. Yet there are two things Israelis agree on this week:
1. They don't know where these protests are going to lead.
2. Whatever Israelis offer in the way of advice to Egyptians will be resented and ignored.
The mood about is one of curiosity. Nobody seems to be too worried. Israeli tourists, businessmen and families of diplomats bailed out of Egypt the same night we arrived here (Jan 30, 2011). There's nobody left to worry about.
So don't listen to those talking heads on the so-called "News Networks". They're all rather self absorbed and don't know what they're talking about. All they know is that it's easier to milk an old story than to find a new one.
Regards,
TINSC
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Why are you protesting against Israel?
I think this video is pretty cute. Moreover, it points out the grotesque hypocrisy employed against Israel.
Friday, January 07, 2011
Monday, December 27, 2010
Saturday, December 04, 2010
ADL: Helen Thomas is a vulgar anti-Semite.
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:
The ADL's Press Release can be found here.
Helen Thomas has clearly, unequivocally revealed herself as a vulgar anti-Semite. Her suggestion that Zionists control government, finance and Hollywood is nothing less than classic, garden-variety anti-Semitism. This is a sad final chapter to an otherwise illustrious career. Unlike her previous, spontaneous remarks into a camera, these words were carefully thought out and conscious. It shows a prejudice that is deep-seated and obsessive.
The ADL's Press Release can be found here.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
I love Hannukah
Hanukkah marks the last time the Jews won a war and nobody griped about it being "an injustice".
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Thank you Prime Minister Harper. A mighty fine speech!
"Harnessing disparate anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-Western ideologies, it targets the Jewish people by targeting the Jewish homeland, Israel, as the source of injustice and conflict in the world, and uses, perversely, the language of human rights to do so.
We must be relentless in exposing this new anti-Semitism for what it is...when Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack - Is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand. Demonization, double standards, delegitimization, the 3 D's, it is a responsibility to stand up to them.
I know, by the way, because I have the bruises to show for it, that whether it is at the United Nations, or any other international forum, the easiest thing to do is simply to just get along and go along with this anti-Israeli rhetoric, to pretend it is just about being even-handed, and to excuse oneself with the label of "honest broker."
There are, after all, a lot more votes - a lot more - in being anti-Israeli than in taking a stand. But, as long as I am prime minister, whether it is at the UN or the Francophonie or anywhere else, Canada will take that stand...Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because history shows us, and the ideology of the anti-Israeli mob tells us all too well, that those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are a threat to all of us."
-- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper
We must be relentless in exposing this new anti-Semitism for what it is...when Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack - Is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand. Demonization, double standards, delegitimization, the 3 D's, it is a responsibility to stand up to them.
I know, by the way, because I have the bruises to show for it, that whether it is at the United Nations, or any other international forum, the easiest thing to do is simply to just get along and go along with this anti-Israeli rhetoric, to pretend it is just about being even-handed, and to excuse oneself with the label of "honest broker."
There are, after all, a lot more votes - a lot more - in being anti-Israeli than in taking a stand. But, as long as I am prime minister, whether it is at the UN or the Francophonie or anywhere else, Canada will take that stand...Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because history shows us, and the ideology of the anti-Israeli mob tells us all too well, that those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are a threat to all of us."
-- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Taxation without representation
Today is election day; a day that reminds us that our republic was founded on the slogan of: "Taxation without representation is tyranny". Indeed, no matter how you view Republicans, Democrats and their respective philosophies on taxation and spending, we get to vote them in and out of office every so often.
This year, we have the phenomenon of the "Tea Party"; a party of conservative "pure constitutionalists" who can probably speak for themselves better than I can with regard to what they stand for. For the most part, with no exceptions that I am aware of, the "Tea Party" candidates are all Republicans theoretically from the more conservative wing of the party.
Therein lies the problem with the "Tea Party" for in the end, these are the same Republicans who voted in George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush to the White House without protest. It puzzles me. After all, the "Tea Party" appears to be named after the "Boston Tea Party" which was for all practical purposes, a militia attack against an English ship carrying Tea which bore a tax that the colonists objected to. "Taxation without representation is tyranny", that's what the Boston Tea Party was about, but today, things are much different.
Today, the prime example of taxation without representation is the illegal and tyrannical manipulation of world petroleum prices by the Saudi-led OPEC cartel. The amount of wealth being siphoned off the industrialized countries is staggering. The OPEC cartel serves as the greatest threat to America's freedom and independence since the World War II. The horrific impact that this oppressive tax has on developing countries is devastating literally in terms of malnutrition and disease that these countries cannot control due to their petroleum bill. Yet for all the cruel tyranny the OPEC cartel inflicts upon us all, nowhere during the political debate have I seen this "Tea Party" address OPEC's oppressive taxation without representation. Given the fact that all the "Tea Party" candidates are Republican, it leaves me to wonder whether they're any different than the same old politicians we already have.
It might feel good to vote Tea Party candidates in office today and I don't discourage you from doing so if that is your wish. I'll merely point out to you that two years from now, you're likely to be thinking "We've been here and done that before. Why did we think it would be different this time?"
This year, we have the phenomenon of the "Tea Party"; a party of conservative "pure constitutionalists" who can probably speak for themselves better than I can with regard to what they stand for. For the most part, with no exceptions that I am aware of, the "Tea Party" candidates are all Republicans theoretically from the more conservative wing of the party.
Therein lies the problem with the "Tea Party" for in the end, these are the same Republicans who voted in George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush to the White House without protest. It puzzles me. After all, the "Tea Party" appears to be named after the "Boston Tea Party" which was for all practical purposes, a militia attack against an English ship carrying Tea which bore a tax that the colonists objected to. "Taxation without representation is tyranny", that's what the Boston Tea Party was about, but today, things are much different.
Today, the prime example of taxation without representation is the illegal and tyrannical manipulation of world petroleum prices by the Saudi-led OPEC cartel. The amount of wealth being siphoned off the industrialized countries is staggering. The OPEC cartel serves as the greatest threat to America's freedom and independence since the World War II. The horrific impact that this oppressive tax has on developing countries is devastating literally in terms of malnutrition and disease that these countries cannot control due to their petroleum bill. Yet for all the cruel tyranny the OPEC cartel inflicts upon us all, nowhere during the political debate have I seen this "Tea Party" address OPEC's oppressive taxation without representation. Given the fact that all the "Tea Party" candidates are Republican, it leaves me to wonder whether they're any different than the same old politicians we already have.
It might feel good to vote Tea Party candidates in office today and I don't discourage you from doing so if that is your wish. I'll merely point out to you that two years from now, you're likely to be thinking "We've been here and done that before. Why did we think it would be different this time?"
Monday, November 01, 2010
I can't wait til tomorrow (Election Day 2010)
All my deceased ancestors in Chicago miraculously come to life for the day.
Monday, October 18, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Why Jews vote predominantly for Democrats
Some people shake their head in amazement. They wonder how this can be given some of the foreign relations problems, particularly with regard to U.S.-Israel relations, that have occurred during President O’Bama’s first 18 months in office. I won’t list those problems here, but I think most of my readers are familiar with at least a few of those issues.
There are a lot of theories about why American Jews vote for Democrats and lean toward liberal views. I’ve heard a lot of them and I understand these theories. I also dismiss them. I have my own theory that I’d like to share with you.
The vast majority of Jewish-Americans are descendants of a wave of immigration from Eastern Europe that occurred between 1890 and 1927. Most of these Jews lived in the “Pale of Settlement” of Eastern Europe. This region was ruled directly or indirectly by the Czar of Russia for most of this period.
It would be an understatement to say that the Russian Czars were anti-Semitic. Moreover, the last Russian Czar, Nicholas II was fully willing to use anti-Semitism to divert public discontent away from his critics and toward a common scapegoat. Nicholas II was the last Czar to rule Russia and was overthrown in 1917 by a coalition of Socialists, Social Democrats, and of course Communists.
Thus, during the period of Jewish immigration, the primary opposition to the hated and anti-Semitic Czar were leftists and those who at the very least, sympathized with the leftists’ opposition to the Czar. When the new Americans came ashore and looked around, the party that best resembled the opposition to the Czar was the Democratic Party. Thus came a natural relationship between Jewish-Americans and the Democratic Party; one that has transcended several generations. In other words, Jews vote predominantly Democratic because the Democratic Party best resembles the traditional opponents of the Czarist regime from which our ancestors fled.
This theory might not be so evident to you, but it became evident to me in the 1990’s when I formulated it. During that period, there was a second, smaller wave of Jewish immigration to the United States from the former U.S.S.R. Anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union didn’t die with Czar Nicholas II. It remained a manifest policy of state. The Soviet Union's open assistance to those wishing to destroy the Jewish State are a matter of fact. While Soviet Jews assimilated under the force of the Communist regime, they still faced considerable discrimination regardless of their efforts to be good citizens.
The primary opposition to the Communist regime in the U.S.S.R. were those who supported free market economics in conjunction with personal political freedom. To these opponents of the Communism, personal political freedom could not come about in the U.S.S.R. without economic freedom.
When the U.S.S.R. dissolved, its Jewish population left in droves. Most went to Israel where there were relatives and government programs in place to absorb them. Others came to the United States where there were also relatives and a significant mixture of private and public programs in place to help them start their lives anew.
These new Jewish-Americans identify with those who opposed the anti-Semitic Communist regime in the U.S.S.R. As they looked around the American political landscape, they found that it was the Republican Party that best resembled the opposition to the old country’s repressive regime. To nobody’s surprise, these new Jewish-Americans are attracted to the political party that best resembles the opposition to the repressive Communist regime. That is why these new Jewish-Americans from the former Soviet Union predominantly vote Republican. I do not find that surprising.
In summary, my thesis is that Jewish-Americans tend to support the Democratic Party because it best represents the opposition to the government from which our ancestors fled. This thesis is re-enforced by the phenomenon that Jewish-Americans who have fled the former Soviet Union tend to support the Republican Party because it too, best represents the opposition to the government from which they fled.
What do you think?
Monday, July 19, 2010
With the right to do evil...
With the right to do evil and no recourse from the law (or Gd), people do it gleefully.
- Ahoylibs
This is one of the most profound things a friend of mine has said to me in a long time.
- Ahoylibs
This is one of the most profound things a friend of mine has said to me in a long time.
Friday, July 09, 2010
CNN fires Middle Eastern editor
The firing of Octavia Nasr, CNN’s Senior Editor for Middle East Affairs, came and went with little fanfare. That shouldn’t surprise any of us because the rest of the news media probably doesn’t want to cover this story on account of their own vulnerabilities.
You see, Octavia Nasr was fired shortly after she posted a comment on Twitter eulogizing a Hezbollah leader, who recently died. The eulogy is all over the internet, I need not repeat it here. You can find other fine stories on the subject from my friends at Tundra Tabloids and Debbieschlussel.com.
For those of you uninformed, Hezbollah is on the U.S. State department’s list of terrorist groups. If the U.S. State Department isn’t credible enough for you (I would understand that.) consider some of the awful attacks Hezbollah is known for:
1. April 1983, U.S. Embassy bombing (by the Islamic Jihad faction).
2. October 1983, U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon
3. June 1985, torture and murder of Col. William F. Buckley in Lebanon
4. June 1985 hijacking of TWA 847 and the torture/murder of U.S. Navy Seal Robert Stethem.
5. March 1992, bombing of the Israel embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina killing 29 people.
6. July 1994, bombing of the Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina killing 85 people.
The list goes on and on. It includes the unrestricted firing of thousands of rockets into Israeli civilian areas over a period of several decades culminating in the 2006 South Lebanon War. The list I have provided is rather short and hardly describes the depth of Hezbollah’s rampage of murder.
It goes without saying that Hezbollah holds a manifest anti-Semitic policy. As such, you might think that Octavia Nasr’s open support for Hezbollah embarrassed CNN due to its Jewish audience. Why I’ll bet you thought that Nasr was fired because she rattled Jewish sensitivities. Nothing could be further from the truth. If that were true, Nasr would have been gone long ago.
The pressure group she angered was the Saudi Petrochemical Lobby. That’s because Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy. Hezbollah is a Shiite Arab terrorist group and quite unique among Arab terrorist organizations. The enmity between Shiite and Sunni Arabs is well known and the House of Saud does not take kindly to those who support Iranian (Persian) terrorist proxies in the Arab world. Hezbollah is a serious threat to Sunni Arab regimes throughout the Persian Gulf. Nasr was allowed to use CNN to demonize the Jewish State for years without repercussions. Once she rattled the Saudis a little, she was given the boot so fast; she didn’t know what hit her.
That is another reason Octavia Nasr’s firing isn’t making many headlines. "The Jews" aren’t responsible for it and therefore, it isn’t news.
You see, Octavia Nasr was fired shortly after she posted a comment on Twitter eulogizing a Hezbollah leader, who recently died. The eulogy is all over the internet, I need not repeat it here. You can find other fine stories on the subject from my friends at Tundra Tabloids and Debbieschlussel.com.
For those of you uninformed, Hezbollah is on the U.S. State department’s list of terrorist groups. If the U.S. State Department isn’t credible enough for you (I would understand that.) consider some of the awful attacks Hezbollah is known for:
1. April 1983, U.S. Embassy bombing (by the Islamic Jihad faction).
2. October 1983, U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon
3. June 1985, torture and murder of Col. William F. Buckley in Lebanon
4. June 1985 hijacking of TWA 847 and the torture/murder of U.S. Navy Seal Robert Stethem.
5. March 1992, bombing of the Israel embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina killing 29 people.
6. July 1994, bombing of the Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina killing 85 people.
The list goes on and on. It includes the unrestricted firing of thousands of rockets into Israeli civilian areas over a period of several decades culminating in the 2006 South Lebanon War. The list I have provided is rather short and hardly describes the depth of Hezbollah’s rampage of murder.
It goes without saying that Hezbollah holds a manifest anti-Semitic policy. As such, you might think that Octavia Nasr’s open support for Hezbollah embarrassed CNN due to its Jewish audience. Why I’ll bet you thought that Nasr was fired because she rattled Jewish sensitivities. Nothing could be further from the truth. If that were true, Nasr would have been gone long ago.
The pressure group she angered was the Saudi Petrochemical Lobby. That’s because Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy. Hezbollah is a Shiite Arab terrorist group and quite unique among Arab terrorist organizations. The enmity between Shiite and Sunni Arabs is well known and the House of Saud does not take kindly to those who support Iranian (Persian) terrorist proxies in the Arab world. Hezbollah is a serious threat to Sunni Arab regimes throughout the Persian Gulf. Nasr was allowed to use CNN to demonize the Jewish State for years without repercussions. Once she rattled the Saudis a little, she was given the boot so fast; she didn’t know what hit her.
That is another reason Octavia Nasr’s firing isn’t making many headlines. "The Jews" aren’t responsible for it and therefore, it isn’t news.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
We are PEACE ACTIVISTS
Yah... right! How many times have I heard some version of THIS:
We are European peace activists. We are peace activists because we say we are. If you disagree, we will brand you a "racist" and have you arrested for hate speech, so beware!
Friday, June 11, 2010
Why Evangelical Christians Support Israel
I have had the great pleasure of working with Christian Zionists and have found the REAL reason Christians support Israel on a religious basis. I shall now plaigerize the book STANDING WITH ISRAEL - WHY CHRISTIANS SUPPORT THE JEWISH STATE by David Brog.
This then, is the REAL reason why many American Christian evangelicals support Israel. They believe it is a Gd-given commandment. I just thought you should know.
In Genesis 12:3, God promises Abraham that, "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you." The "you" employed here is a plural, referring to Abraham and his descendants, that is Israel. To a dispensationalist, therefore, Genesis 12:3 practically commands philo-Semitism and Zionism. Genesis 12:3 is Christian Zionism in a nutshell.
This then, is the REAL reason why many American Christian evangelicals support Israel. They believe it is a Gd-given commandment. I just thought you should know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
