http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/turning_towards_santorum.html Everyone paying attention to politics at this point in the cycle has read at least a dozen different mathematical calculations on how improbable it is for anyone other than Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination for the presidency. While some of those equations make sense, only one thing is certain: Mitt will definitely […]
Islamonausea, not Islamophobia
As in many other nauseating situations, Islamonausea is a normal and natural reaction to something abnormal, not vice versa.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012020415546/life-and-science/culture-wars/islamonausea-not-islamophobia.html
” We should stop using Muslims’ self-chosen word – “Islamophobia” – by which they paint themselves into a corner of being feared: it destroys communication. Instead of such a divisive term, we should insert a more approachable and factual word that preserves opportunities for bridge-building and learning: “Islamonausea.” This does not render communication impossible, but enables visitors to our Western cultures to notice aspects of their behavior that make us sick.”
There is nothing phobic or racist in feeling nausea when hearing about the Islamic massacres performed by Muhammad and his many devout copycats through history and all over the world today. The same goes for Muhammad’s sexual relationship with a nine-year old girl, and the cutting off of limbs and stonings in the name of Allah and his Sharia laws.
…Examples of use of the word: “I’m not afraid of Islam, I have Islamonausea.” “I do not want minarets in my town. They give me Islamonausea.” “They got Islamonausea from all the Muslim immigrants and decided to move to another neighbourhood.” “Reading the Koran gives me Islamonausea.” “He got Islamonausea and decided to quit his job at the prison.” “I get Islamonausea hearing about all those honor killings.” “I get Islamonausea at the thought of eating Halal.” “I get Islamonausea seeing all those Muslims hopping up and down and shooting in the air, trying to scare us into respecting their childish behaviour.”
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
If anyone is to blame for Russia and China’s vetoing of the Syria resolution in the UN Security Council, it’s Barack Obama. Last year the United States and the Arab League brought forward a No Fly Zone to the UN Security Council. Instead of enforcing a No Fly Zone, Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy instead used it as an excuse for an invasion and regime change. If Russia and China refused to take another plan from the same suspects at face value, the blame lies with an administration that abused a No Fly Zone.
The message from Russia and China is fairly clear. Fool me once, shame on you. But don’t even think about trying it twice.
A closer look at the whole process reveals the ridiculousness of it. The Security Council Resolution calling for peaceful democratic change was co-sponsored by Saudi Arabia, which is an absolute monarchy, and which recently used tanks to suppress protests in Bahrain. As the driving force behind the Arab League, Saudi Arabia was the key player in moving for regime change in Libya. Now it has rubber stamped regime change in Syria.
But why are we expected to take a call by one tyranny for the overthrow of another as a moral duty. As bad as the Assad regime is, Syria is marginally more open and democratic than Saudi Arabia is. And unlike Saudi Arabia, it isn’t an Apartheid state that treats non-Muslims and women like dirt. If we were going to implement regime change on the basis of democracy and human rights, we would start with the Saudis.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1769/pub_detail.asp
1. VIDEO: Holy War Over Health Care Law? Overhaul Raises Questions on Separation of Church and State
2. VIDEO: Shocked? “Hidden” Mortgage Fee Paying for Administration’s Extension of Bush’s Payroll Tax Cut…NEW Fees on those getting Mortgages and Re-Financing…that will cost them THOUSANDS of dollars!
3. VIDEO: Az Border Town Non-English Speaking Woman Banned from Candidate Ballot.
4. VIDEO: White House: People Leaving the Work Force in Droves is an “Economic Good”, or Something
5. VIDEO: Under Siege? Spain Resists Islamic ‘Invasion’
6. Kelly a ‘Ray-cist’? What a Smear – Attacks on the Police Commissioner for Anti-Muslim Bias are Wrong
7. VIDEO: Europe Snow Freezes Global Warming Claims
8. VIDEO: NewsBusters Satire: Who says Conservatives have no Sense of Humor? (2-03-12)
9. Ridiculous Gov’t. Spending List Grows Longer
10. Truth, lies and Afghanistan – Speaking truth to power as this author does is dangerous, but it sure enlightens the rest of us….
Tu B’shvat is Tomorrow The Un-Greening of Tu B’Shvat
Almost everything that most people “know” about Tu B’Shvat is totally
wrong and completely false. Tu B’Shvat, the 15th day of the month of
Shvat in the Jewish calendar, has been deconstructed in recent years
and converted into a holiday of ecology and environmentalist political
agitprop.
It is waved about by the Tikkun Olam Pagans as a political banner to
demand that all Jews support the Green political agenda. The wacko
pagan “Eco-Judaism” movement, including its Tikkun dervishes, has made
it their holiest of all holidays, a day to hug bushes and worship tree
spirits and nature. And Jewish assimilationist liberals in the United
States use it as theological ammunition to disarm anyone criticizing
environmentalist fanatics.
At a time when the State of Israel is under threat of annihilation, and anti-Semitism is on the rise, the following story about one Quebec Jew is well worth reading.
http://www.aish.com/jw/s/A_Quebec_Jew.html
ALSO READ
http://www.cjnews.com/node/89286
From Catholic Bloc Québécois MP to staunch Jewish activist.
by Steve McDonald
By changing religion, was I reneging on part of my identity? Or was I adding to it? How were my family and my friends going to see me? Were they going to see me as “the Jew”?
How was my father, a deeply religious and practicing Catholic, going to react? My head was reeling as I thought of my mother, my sister, my brothers.
Would my constituents from the riding of Charlesbourg, in Quebec City, accept being represented by a Jew? By converting to Judaism, was I putting my political career at risk?
These were just some of the thoughts enveloping Richard Marceau moments before he entered a mikveh in 2004. Last-minute considerations common to most Jews-by-choice. But it’s Marceau’s unique journey that is decidedly uncommon, as revealed in his recently published memoirs A Quebec Jew: From Bloc Québécois MP to Jewish Activist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/06/palestinian-factions-fatah-hamas-unity-government The Guardian Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas to form unity government Mahmoud Abbas to lead government in West Bank and Gaza, following reconciliation talks between rival groups Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem guardian.co.uk, Monday 6 February 2012 07.26 EST Mahmoud Abbas, left, and Khaled Meshaal, right, sit with Qatar’s crown prince Sheik Tamim Bin Hamad […]
http://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2012/02/07/the_presidents_social_gospel/print
For 60 years the National Prayer Breakfast has been a nonpolitical event where speakers put aside their earthly biases and focus on a Higher Authority. Last Thursday, President Obama departed from that tradition to claim the endorsement of Jesus for raising taxes. It beat the endorsement of Mitt Romney by Donald Trump.
In his remarks, the president quoted Luke 12:48: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” The president sees this verse as a command for him to raise taxes on the successful so the money can be “spread around” to the less successful. If the president’s interpretation of this verse sounds a little like Karl Marx, it should. Marx said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
http://townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/2012/02/06/chalk_up_another_one_for_islam_in_the_pr_battle
Even after all these years, journalist-socialite Sally Quinn still embodies a Washington way of thinking – a heart-of-Georgetown, A-list set of salon-tested assumptions “everyone” knows that provides attitudes for any occasion.
Take the surreal state of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. One day, William G. “Jerry” Boykin, a highly decorated retired Army general and ordained minister, and a founding member and leader of Delta Force, was scheduled to speak at a West Point prayer breakfast. The next day, following a campaign to stop Boykin’s appearance by what the New York Times describes as “liberal veterans’ groups, civil liberties advocates and Muslim organizations,” Boykin was not scheduled to speak at West Point. “In fulfilling its commitment to the community,” West Point announced, “the U.S. Military Academy will feature another speaker for the event.”
Quinn’s reaction? West Point didn’t go far enough. Fire whoever is responsible for inviting Boykin, she wrote in her online Washington Post column “On Faith,” because his criticism of Islam makes him “notorious.” Why, it’s nothing less than blasphemy, as everyone who is anyone would agree – and who else is there?
No one, at least not at West Point. You can bet your last bullet the replacement speaker will not have identified, studied and himself experienced jihad – in military terms, the enemy threat doctrine – as Lt. Gen. Boykin has. This makes Boykin’s abrupt cancellation an information-war victory for the Muslim Brotherhood something few in Washington or West Point will even notice.
Muslim Brotherhood? Isn’t that in Egypt? How does the Muslim Brotherhood figure into a story about West Point?
Prominent in the stop-Boykin coalition is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), known mainly for sound bite-ready spokesmen who present an Islamic point of view on TV. More important is CAIR’s place in the Muslim Brotherhood constellation of front groups as an entity founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian franchise, the jihad terror group Hamas.
This revelation emerged during the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial in a document authored by the Muslim Brotherhood itself. It attests to the presence in the United States of multiple Muslim Brotherhood front groups, including CAIR, which remains an unindicted co-conspirator in that case. The FBI cut off official contacts with CAIR in 2008.
Such information is documented in “Shariah: The Threat to America,” a book Boykin and I and 17 others, including former CIA director James Woolsey and former Reagan Pentagon official Frank Gaffney, co-authored in 2010. I wouldn’t be surprised if the book played some animating role in the Battle over Boykin at West Point, won by CAIR and celebrated in all the best bastions impregnable to fact.
That includes Quinn’s Washington Post column. Not only should Boykin’s West Point sponsor be fired, she writes, “that person should … say ‘I’m sorry.’”
If Georgetown were a revival tent, a chorus of “Amen, sister” would rise over N Street. But no. Indeed, some animus toward Boykin may form in reaction to the evangelical brand of Christianity he expresses on faith and war in churches across the country. Back in 2003, following the publication of snippets of these talks, the Pentagon investigated Boykin’s invocations of “Satan” as the enemy, and his attesting to his faith in the Christian “real God” over his enemy’s “idol.” In Georgetown, this counts as full-blown culture clash – enough to deflate the bubbles in the sparkling Vouvray.
“He has said that ‘there is no greater threat to America than Islam,’” Quinn continues, building her case. Luckily, she isn’t arguing in a Shariah-run courtroom, because her testimony would then be worth half of a man’s – one reason for Boykin’s concerns about Islam’s impact.
Then Quinn quotes “Shariah: The Threat to America”: “And in a study he co-authored, (he said) ‘most mosques in the United States already have been radicalized, that most Muslim social organizations are fronts for jihadists.’ How could this happen?” She means the West Point invitation, natch.
Quinn is quoting a description of the book by others, but never mind. What’s extremely interesting here is that she isn’t contesting the veracity of these documented claims. Conventional Washington-to-West Point wisdom is conditioned to see them as so absurd as to be beneath consideration. Doesn’t everybody? Ridiculous. Stoo-pid. Just typing them out – regardless of their accuracy – elicits guffaws of programmed outrage.
I would say the Muslim Brothers have done their public-relations job well, but frankly, this information operation was over before it began.
http://townhall.com/columnists/byronyork/2012/02/06/what_really_happened_to_the_gingrich_ethics_case/print
What Really Happened to the Gingrich Ethics Case?By Byron York
“bottom line: Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. Of course, by that time, Gingrich was out of office, widely presumed to be guilty of something, and his career in politics was (seemingly) o ver. Now he’s having to fight the fight all over again.”
The Romney campaign has been hitting Newt Gingrich hard over the 1990s ethics case that resulted in the former speaker being reprimanded and paying a $300,000 penalty. Romney mentions it often, and his campaign made the ethics case the focus of the most widely viewed attack ad of the Florida primary.
Given all that attention, it’s worth asking what actually happened back in 1995, 1996 and 1997.
