.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Tuesday, January 27, 2015


Are women without genitalia the result of Republican budget cuts or the Koch brothers?

This is not a hoax.

It appears that Mount Holyoke College - in impeccably Liberal Massachusetts - cancelled a planned performance of “The Vagina Monologues” because the women's college deemed the play “exclusionary” toward the “transgendered community,” possibly offending women without vaginas. 

There are any number of reasons not to stage one of the most over-rated pieces of sexual propaganda foisted on the public in the name of "art." But we are inured to the absurdities of the "art" world since reading Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word," seeing Piss Christ exhibited as art - along with a urinal - and the excretable framed crap collected by Paine Webber's chairman Don Marron.

So it appears that feminism has now progressed to a point that it's now removing it's founders, much as Stalin removed the founding Communists.  Eve Ensler?  Never heard of her.

Nikolai Yezhov, walking with Stalin in the left photo from the 1930s, was killed in 1940.
Following his execution, Yezhov was edited out of the photo by Soviet censors/

A mere few weeks ago "The Vagina Monologues" was the high point of feminist art. Today, it's relegated to the dustbin of history, an example of the exclusionary nature of the less enlightened strains of feminism, oppressing women without vaginas.   Next we can expect an investigation to see if the Koch brothers, in league with perfidious Republicans are responsible for this outrage.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, January 23, 2015


A Tedious, Recycled State of the Union

Before the financial crisis, Obama ran on “investing” in education, health care, renewable energy, infrastructure, and so on. After the financial crisis hit, presumably our needs changed, but not Obama’s agenda. Suddenly, what America needed to do to respond to the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression was to again “invest” in education, health care, renewable energy, and infrastructure. And now that the “shadow of crisis has passed,” as he announced on Tuesday, the same investments are needed. Why? Because he said it before, of course.

The same holds true with his foreign-policy agenda. As a candidate, Obama vowed that we needed to pull back from the War on Terror. After the rise of the Islamic State and the metastasizing of jihadist terror around the world, we must stay the course. Even when events deviate from the president’s well-worn script, what matters is that the script never change so Obama can keep talking and talking and talking.

Labels: ,


"This isn't ISIS"

Tom Brady hit the right note. As the press obsesses over the correct air pressure in a football, ignoring Obama's obvious lies in his just completed - and little watched - State of the Union address.

So little attention has been paid to ISIS lately that President Barack Obama was able to boast in his State of the Union address that an American-led coalition has stopped the terror gang’s advances without drawing a derisive laugh from his audience. That claim is not corroborated by any press reports we’ve been able to hunt down, and will surely come as a surprise to the unfortunate residents of Mosul and Fallujah and numerous other cities that once enjoyed the protection of American troops but are now beleaguered by ISIS’ murderous gangs, and is acknowledged as a falsehood by Pentagon officials, but that’s easily overlooked when there’s a charge afoot that a professional football team might have deflated a ball. The president further claimed that Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has been halted, that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program in gratitude for the president’s protection from economic sanctions, and that he somehow deserves credit for America’s recent oil boom, but until some photogenic sports star draws attention to such balderdash it will also go largely unnoticed.

When there are serious issues - like the proper amount of air pumped into a football - the press knows its priorities.  It is on it like white on rice, grateful for being able to ignore the increasingly desperate plight of the middle class and the spread of a deadly virus known as radical Islam. 

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, January 22, 2015


The Nazis Were Socialists, Not Right-Wingers

Labels: , ,

Monday, January 19, 2015


Nothing to Do with Islam. Move Along.

Labels: , , ,


Charlie Hebdo and the aftermath.

What should we say about the Muslim terror attacks in Paris and Charlie Hebdo?  Having waited a decent interval for the dead to be buried and the marchers to go home, for the hot outrage to have cooled, let's have a discussion.

What made Charlie a target?  It dared make fun of Mohammad.  That is not allowed by Muslims.

Few people were aware of this magazine before the assault by Muslim terrorists. It's circulation is modest and it's treatment of its subject matter is tasteless.  Charlie is a virulently anti-religious magazine but it has the distinction of including Islam as a target.  Most other Western publications use a deferential tone when discussing Islam, referring the Mohammad as "The Prophet" and endlessly referring to Islam as the "Religion of Peace."   These same publications are uninhibited in their discussion of Christianity, and evangelical Christianity is mocked mercilessly. The press does not refer to Christ as Messiah Jesus.  Unlike the Koran, the Bible is often referred to, not as Christianity's "Holy Book" but as the object of "Bible Thumpers."

You can be absolutely sure that every Christmas or Easter a newspaper or magazine near you will have an article by a "modern" biblical scholar deconstructing scripture, or one about "finding" Jesus' tomb with the bones still inside.  The Virgin Mary comes in for special treatment;  the BBC aired a program claiming that Jesus' real father was a Roman soldier who raped Mary.  

In a country that is roughly three-quarters Christian, the media feel free to attack Christianity and disparage Christians.  In fact it's admired for its anti-clericalism in the social circles these people inhabit.  But they show respect for Muslims sensibilities because they're cowards.  They know that Muslims will kill you, Methodists don't.

Which brings us to Charlie.  With the exception of the Muslim world, there is universal agreement that the terrorist attack by Islamofascists on Charlie is despicable.  But militant Islamists have been killing people in large numbers for quite while now.  The Middle East and parts of Africa are in flames thanks to violent Islamic movements.  The thing that made Charlie's mass murder shocking was it's location - the center of Paris -  by young French men with a Middle Eastern heritage.  It brought into sharp focus the growth of a violent Islamic community in the center of Europe.   Europe is under attack.  It's people, it's culture and it's very existence as a Western enclave is in question.

In a way, Charlie Hebdo and its attackers have something in common.  Neither one has much use for European culture.   Like Barack Obama, they wish to fundamentally transform it.  Muslims by immigration, non-assimilation, and the threat of violence.  The Left - and make no mistake Charlie is firmly on the Left -  through its dominance of the media and academia.  

But just because both despise the existing culture does not mean that they are not at each others throats. They despise each other and are fighting for dominance.  In Weimar Germany two Leftist movements - Communists and Nazis - battled in the streets and the beer halls for dominance.  It was "Uncle Joe" Stalin who labelled the Nazis's "right wing," and the press has been parroting that lie ever since.  The Nazi's were not calling themselves "National Socialists" with any sense of irony.

Which brings us to the question, should we chant "I am Charlie?"  Should we applaud Charlie?  Should we imitate Charlie?  Is free speech an end in itself or the means to an end?  Is free speech absolute?  Should certain things be off limits, if not legally then morally?  Let's agree that no one should be killed for being offensive.  But a Muslim physician in Baltimore makes some good points about the way the media - supposedly the champion of free speech - doesn't practice what it preaches.

Different patients hurt at different places. Just because my sensitivity is my Prophet, does not mean yours has to be a divine figure as well. For Jews, Moses may be fair game, but mocking the Holocaust is not. For Christians, ridiculing Jesus causes varying levels of angst. For Blacks, the N-word is off-limits. And certain ridicule has left the LGBT community so terrified that it hurts all over.

It's largely our social — not legal — codes that bar us from poking at others' tender spots. 

And when these codes are violated, we rush to amend. When PepsiCo released an ad for Mountain Dew in 2013 that was deemed racist and misogynist, it was axed. When Snickers launched a 2007 Super bowl ad showing two straight men accidentally kissing, it was considered to be homophobic and benched. When a Jewish-owned company created a billboard ad for a budget vodka, boasting "Christmas Quality, Hanukkah Pricing," it was quickly pulled. 

Yet, no one thought it was the end of the First Amendment. Why then, can the American Muslims not ask for the end to hurtful material against Prophet Muhammad without getting a free speech lecture shoved down their throats? 

If "nothing should be off limits," as American Muslims are reminded, then why do we mollify other groups? Why do we lionize free speech only when it ridicules Prophet Muhammad?

Unfortunately for him, his examples refute his conclusion.  The press does not lionize free speech. The media do not practice free speech or we would not have any references to A Word That Must Not Be Uttered By A White Man That Begins With "N." His other examples also refute his point that Muslims are uniquely picked on in the press.  But he does have a larger point, it's simply bad manners, immature, juvenile, stupid, ill bred and generally offensive to make fun of other people's sacred beliefs.   

Charlie was not focused on ridiculing Muslims.  They specialized on ridiculing everyone and everything that represented Western culture and did it in the crudest terms.  They were an equal opportunity insult machine and Christianity was one of their favorite targets.   

....Charb’s wide repertoire of freaks and grotesques, who range from the various popes to Jesus himself, depicted nude and sodomizing his heavenly father 

Become more like Charlie?  No.  Even if we sympathize and grieve for the victims of the terrorist attacks.  Because the Left, the nihilists, the iconoclasts are a dead end, a soulless collective.  The Communist dream mashed together with a "whatever floats your boat" ethical standard.    

There are any number of  reasons to oppose Islamic expansion and violence.  In my opinion, Islam is a violent, oppressive political movement dressed up as a religion.  Kwanzaa with a prophet.  The attack on Charlie did not add or detract from that opinion.  The attack was a wake-up call only to the simple-minded who believed that Islam really is a religion of peace.  It may help the low-information crowd to understand that Islam is on the march and will kill you, even in Paris, unless you submit.  

But the means to resist and roll Islam back are found in our religion, our culture, and our morality.  If we become more like Charlie we disarm ourselves because Charlie believes in nothing more elevated than an accidental universe while followers of Islam believes in something greater.  When it comes to a mortal struggle, people who believe in something greater than themselves have a big advantage over those who only believe in themselves.  When George H.W. Bush was Vice President he attended a series of funerals of Soviet leaders.  After Brezhnev funeral in 1982 he remarked "there was something missing.  There was no mention of God.  There was no hope, no joy, no life ever after .... So discouraging in a sense, so hopeless, so lonely in a way."  It took a while, but those who believed in the Soviet "new man" were vanquished by those who believed in God.

People who are willing to kill themselves via suicide bombings believing that they will go to heaven with 72 virgins of their own are more motivated and infinitely more dangerous than people who believe that this brief life is all there is, so you have to "Go for the gusto" (drinking beer), or by publishing a magazine filled with bad cartoons mocking Christ or Mohammad. 

If the West is successful again, as it once was before the Gates of Vienna, it will succeed for reasons that are the exact opposite of the kind of nihilism that motivates Charlie Hebdo.  Be Breitbart , be courageous for truth.

Labels: , ,


Trey Gowdy on the role of the House of Representatives

It got him a standing ovation.

Labels: , ,


About that "warmest year" hoax.

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

Its report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty.

And here's the kicker:

‘Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year… the Earth’s average temperature for the past decade has changed very little.’

The earth's average temperature has changed very little over the last decade.  When skeptics say this they're compared to Holocaust Deniers.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, January 18, 2015


Native Hawaiians Seek Independence

The DRUDGE report links to an article in Hawaii News Now Native Hawaiians debate best for path to sovereignty

It may surpise people who have never been to Hawaii and think of it as nothing but a tourist paradise,, but the Islands are home to some very unhappy people.  There are some very specific definitions of who is a "native" and who is not, and what it means in legal terms.

I was surprised to find that a lot of "native" Hawaiians don't want to be part of the US.  In fact they are as dissatisfied with America as Al Sharpton or Barack Obama. 

Don't be surprised if this feeling grows and results in political agitation and ends in violence.  

Labels: ,

Saturday, January 17, 2015


Meet the honor brigade, an organized campaign to silence debate on Islam

How Islamofascists try to control the narrative.  When you hear someone described as "Islamophobic" it probably started in the Honor Brigade.

It was the first time a fellow Muslim had pressed me to refrain from criticizing the way our faith was practiced. But in the past decade, such attempts at censorship have become more common. This is largely because of the rising power and influence of the “ghairat brigade,” an honor corps that tries to silence debate on extremist ideology in order to protect the image of Islam. It meets even sound critiques with hideous, disproportionate responses.

The campaign began, at least in its modern form, 10 years ago in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, when the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — a mini-United Nations comprising the world’s 56 countries with large Muslim populations, plus the Palestinian Authority — tasked then-Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu with combating Islamophobia and projecting the “true values of Islam.” During the past decade, a loose honor brigade has sprung up, in part funded and supported by the OIC through annual conferences, reports and communiques. It’s made up of politicians, diplomats, writers, academics, bloggers and activists.

In 2007, as part of this playbook, the OIC launched the Islamophobia Observatory, a watchdog group based in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, with the goal of documenting slights against the faith. Its first report, released the following year, complained that the artists and publishers of controversial Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad were defiling “sacred symbols of Islam . . . in an insulting, offensive and contemptuous manner.” The honor brigade began calling out academics, writers and others, including former New York police commissioner Ray Kelly and administrators at a Catholic school in Britain that turned away a mother who wouldn’t remove her face veil.

“The OIC invented the anti-‘Islamophobia’ movement,” says Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and a frequent target of the honor brigade. “These countries . . . think they own the Muslim community and all interpretations of Islam.”

Alongside the honor brigade’s official channel, a community of self-styled blasphemy police — from anonymous blogs such as LoonWatch.com and Ikhras.com to a large and disparate cast of social-media activists — arose and began trying to control the debate on Islam. This wider corps throws the label of “Islamophobe” on pundits, journalists and others who dare to talk about extremist ideology in the religion. Their targets are as large as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and as small as me.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, January 15, 2015


four years after the start of the Arab Spring, the new Middle East looks more and more like the old one—only worse.


From the Wall Street Journal

While U.S. airstrikes have put Islamic State forces on the defensive in Iraq, they haven’t had the same effect in Syria. Our story looks at why military action by the U.S. has not stopped Islamic State militants from expanding their control in Syria and considers the implications of this failure. We note that some administration officials have been pushing America to focus more attention on Syria, but powerful voices oppose any idea that would drag the U.S. military deeper into a country where few see options that will improve the situation. However, the “Iraq-first” strategy is likely to be questioned in the coming weeks when the new Republican-controlled Congress holds hearings on the president’s game plan in the Middle East. Meanwhile, we report that the U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State is coming under growing criticism in Iraq, complicating the mission as Washington ramps up its forces in the country. And we look at the wider region, noting that four years after the start of the Arab Spring, the new Middle East looks more and more like the old one—only worse.
Before we deployed Barack Hussein Obama's SMART DIPLOMACY in the Middle East as the Arab Spring unfolded the area was controlled by a few long time dictators and Arab "royalty" who were content to not cause trouble.  Today, after deaths counted in the hundreds of thousands, crazies are roaming the sands forests bringing back the 7th century and importing it into a Western world which though it left that all behind centuries ago.

Well, (as Glenn Reynolds often notes) this is the 21sc Century, you know.

Labels: , , , ,

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?