The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “culture”

Thank You, James Zogby! (For Your Patently Biased, Offensive And Stupid Observation About President Romney)

To paraphrase – with one factually wrong, decidedly insensitive, and patently biased comment, Arab American Institute President, James Zogby, and liberal aspirant, is doing more to focus attention away from the devastating impact Palestinian culture has had on the Palestinian economy and its own people for well over two decades, the result of which (should Zogby’s despicable propaganda mesmerize the masses of Palestinians he caters to) can only stymie development in that region for more decades to come.

James Zogby, being of Arab descent, (his father came to America illegally, from Lebanon, and Zogby was born in New York) and having a liberal mindset, and bias against Israel, (probably a personal hatred too), and writing for the “Arianna Nation” severely scolds soon to be President Romney for his “patently bias comment” he made about Palestinian culture, which was neither patently biased nor anywhere near off the mark.  In fact, when Romney blamed Palestinian culture for its own economic woes, Romney hit a grand slam.  Zogby, conversely, in his pathetic diatribe, struck out.

Says Zogby:

Romney’s observation that “culture makes all the difference,” which he offered as his explanation for the disparities between the Israeli and Palestinian economies, was so remarkably out of touch with reality that it set off an unprecedented explosion of press commentary in the United States and Europe.”

Since Palestinian culture only lives to destroy Israel, and since Palestinian terrorists have had, and continue to have a long history of hostility and violence against Israel; since its own faux government, whether that be Hamas or the PLO, both openly supports terrorist activities against Israel and Israeli citizens; since there is no real Palestinian nation, but a mere collection of people living in and around Israel, who identify themselves as Palestinians; since these people who call themselves Palestinians are wont to kill all Jews and overtake Jerusalem and all of Israel distinctly because of their culture and their cultural upbringing, what Romney said about Palestinian culture was right – and Zogby knows it!

Zogby speaks of  “an unprecedented explosion of press commentary in the United States and Europe.”  Well, to be exact, Romney’s “observation” set off an avalanche, “explosion” of hate-filled criticism throughout the liberal Main Stream Media (MSM) in America and around the world.  Who is surprised by that?  Who is baffled that liberals in America and around the world, most of whom also hate Jews and Israel, would condemn Romney for pointing out an obvious fact and truth about a deviant, childish, malevolent and very violent culture such as that of the Palestinians?

Most of the United States’s (sic) major daily newspapers featured articles, commentary and even editorials taking issue with the Romney quote — highlighting repressive Israeli policies, and not an “inferior culture” as the reason for the poor performance of the Palestinian economy.”

Well, duh!  It’s only the liberal media “taking issue”.  Of course, to the liberal media, the very thought of Israel protecting itself against such an “inferior culture” as that of the Palestinians, who have not stopped, nor will they stop, attacking Israel, would be shocking.  The only product the Palestinians manufacture, create and sell is terrorists and terrorism.  If a Palestinian even has a job, it is most likely as a terrorist.  If the Palestinians even have schools, can anyone imagine what is being taught?

Zogby completely ignores history when he writes:

in 1994 the Palestinian economy received a devastating hit resulting from the Israeli closure of the territories. The “closure,” which cut Palestinians off from Greater Jerusalem, and severely limited interaction between Palestinians and Israel, was initially imposed as a temporary “preventive measure” in the wake of the massacre of Palestinians committed by an Israeli settler in Hebron. The “temporary closure” never ended.

That massacre was initiated by Baruch Goldstein, and not only was it condemned by Israel, but its own cabinet expelled an extreme right-wing Kach party over its support of Goldstein’s actions that left dozens of Palestinians dead.  In other words, Israeli culture openly condemned acts of terrorism against Palestinians.  Where has Palestinian culture ever condemned acts of terrorism against Israelis?

And why does anyone think Zogby might have omitted those facts from his Romney- Israeli bashing article?

Israel, and its culture, which is far superior to anything in or around the Middle East, is the only think keeping the Middle East from imploding on itself.  If the Palestinians were to stop their acts of terrorism and violence against Israel; if the Palestinians were sincerely interested in peace with Israel, Israel would be more than happy to reopen itself, its borders, to the Palestinian people; to its economy and its culture.  Palestinians don’t want that.  Palestinians want all Jews dead and to take control of Israel for themselves.  That is who the Palestinians are, and that is their culture.  And James Zogby knows it!

Until the Palestinian economy divests itself from terrorism, from the manufacturing, selling and exploitation of terrorism, it will not have an economy worthy of supporting.  And until the Palestinian people, within their culture, renounces its goal of total annihilation for Israel, they will continue to live and die in the poverty they themselves created from their own deep-seeded hate.  And James Zogby knows it!

What is the rest of the Arab world doing to help the Palestinians, to shoulder some of the responsibilities and help Palestinians out of poverty and into jobs?  What is the hapless, useless United Nations doing?  Nothing.  And James Zogby knows it!

With the exception of blood money, and that money used specifically to fuel terrorism and terrorist activities, how much money has the Arab world contributed to the Palestinians to help create jobs, spur new business ventures and economic growth?  Nothing.  And James Zogby knows it!

How much land has the Arab world agreed to donate (or even sell at a reasonable price) to its Muslim and Islamic brethren for a Palestinian State of its own?  Nothing.  And James Zogby knows it!

And so, for pointing out, yet again, just how deeply biased liberals such as yourself are against Israel; how much you truly despise Israel and self-loving Jews (as opposed to self-hating Jews); enough to have gone to the “Arianna Nation” to post your anti-Romney, anti-Israel diatribe, thank you, James Zogby, for best illustrating patent and blatant absurdity, which is the cornerstone of liberalism.

Doesn’t James Zogby know that?

About these ads

Nancy Pelosi: The Iron-ing Lady Part 3 – Playing Chicken With Homosexuality

Since Chick-fil-A founder and president Dan Cathy “came out” and publicly opposed gay marriage, liberals, predictably, have been denouncing him and every conservative under the sun for what is unfairly, but routinely, referred to as bigotry, homophobia and hatred of an entire people.  Nancy Pelosi, our own Iron-ing Lady has clucked into the conversation as well.  And in case you ever wondered where she acquired her greasy fingers, she has provided us with that answer in her paltry attempt at sneering her nose at Chick-fl-A, and conservatives, while endearing herself to those gays and lesbians who are just weak-minded enough to overlook her condescension towards them.  Pelosi has stated she prefers Kentucky Fried Chicken over Chick-fil-A.

We know that in real life Pelosi could care less about KFC or Chick-fil-A.  But our Iron-ing Lady needed to make some type of statement to her homosexual and liberal base to acknowledge her “disgust” with Cathy for his stance on tradition marriage, no matter how blatantly irrational and obviously false.  This is what liberals do, after-all.  They merely blow with the wind, in whatever direction that wind happens to be blowing on that particular day.  Pelosi thought she could use a “controversy” (which what Cathy stated is not) and make conservatives look weak and foolish, hateful and bigoted, while at the same time propping herself up as a model of endearing tolerance and acceptance.  Pelosi has merely shown herself to be the fool.

Conservatism has come a long way since the 1940′s  and 50′s when there was virtually universal agreement among conservatives that homosexuality was an absolute abomination, and that included going so far as to regulate what gays and lesbians did in the privacy of their own homes.  That type of mentality no longer exists in modern conservatism.  Most conservatives, today, while they may oppose gay marriage, and may oppose homosexuality itself, have absolutely no desire to regulate or control or punish the act of homosexuality.  Certainly not to the extent of our parents and grandparents generation.  And we neither are interested in regulating what gays and lesbians do in the privacy of their own homes any more than we desire to regulate what they do in public – within the realm of reasonable and polite conduct, which also goes for heterosexuals.

While tolerance for homosexuality has dramatically increased within conservative circles, that doesn’t mean we regard homosexuality as either a civil or Constitutional right.  And we certainly do not support judges making up laws based on their own personal opinions.  We, conservatives, (most conservatives at any rate) are not interested in punishing someone for being gay or lesbian.  We certainly do not want laws on the books that ban homosexuals from participating in, and alongside of, society.  Nor do we desire to push them out of society.  In fact, most conservatives today openly welcome gays and lesbians into society, as we do with anyone who acts in a responsible, dignified and proper manner in public.

Most homosexuals who are liberal (for we know there are many conservative gays and lesbians as well) are hell-bent on pushing themselves and their marriage equality agenda on our entire nation, with total and absolute disregard for what the will of the people want.  That is sheer arrogance and a recipe for a devastating set-back for homosexuals in America.  And as America moves back to its conservative roots, while it accepts homosexuality to a greater degree than in decades past, if gays and lesbians agitate and aggravate conservatives too much, that support will begin to diminish and homosexuals will be back to pre-Stonewall times.  This ought to frustrate the hell out of conservative gays and lesbians who know the games that liberals are playing with them, at their expensive.  And conservative gays and lesbians ought to know that liberals who play these games with their sexual orientation only do so because they feel it will score them political points, not because they, like our Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi, really cares about you or whether your rights, and your entire lifestyle, are being trampled on by a restaurant owner.

If gay marriage is ever going to come to fruition in America, it can only do so when a majority of American people favor such a redefining of marriage, and show that support in the voting booths.  Gay marriage, indeed, homosexuality itself, will make no inroads so long as it continues to force itself on the America people and make absurd and improper demands on us such as to either accept them or be labeled and branded as bigots and homophobes.

We, conservatives, are much stronger, and more resolved, than weak-minded buffoons like our Iron-ing Lady, Nancy Pelosi.  Not only is she playing chicken with homosexuality, she is chicken.  So are all liberals who have come out in opposition to Cathy and his American right to have and to voice his opinion.  Freedom of speech is not only for liberals.  But every time a conservative speaks up on behalf of an issue liberals reject, said liberals try to silence conservatives.  Cathy said nothing improper, nothing bigoted, nothing hateful.

Pelosi, on the other hand, is far more hateful, far more bigoted, and far more a hypocrite for her pathetic response to Cathy than is Cathy towards gays and lesbians.  Why?  Cathy is sincere in his stance against gay marriage, which has nothing to do with homosexuality in of itself.  How sincere is Pelosi, really, towards homosexuality, or any issue that she supports, which she only supports because she has been told by strategists such support will equate into more votes for her?  Try as Pelosi might, this Iron-ing Lady cannot smooth out the wrinkles of her convoluted absurdity.

In fact, the fabric of liberalism, on which these wrinkles reside, have so distorted, and so faded, the original facade of this outfit that at this point it is best to just throw it out and buy something new.  (Some might consider this to be an insult against Pelosi herself.  It is more of an insult against liberalism, than any one liberal.  But, and although Pelosi is old and is showing her age, and as a politician is indeed worn, faded and wrinkled, it could also be taken to mean it is time to replace Pelosi with a fresh face in congress that is not so set, as stone, in their ways.)

It’s up to all gays and lesbians to decide how far they want to take the issue of gay marriage, and in which direction they wish to take it.  America is in fact becoming more conservative, little by little.  Either they can reject liberals like Pelosi, who only pander to them, and embrace conservative who, although may not support gay marriage, certainly do not support outlawing and punishing homosexuality or homosexual behavior – and would accept, in principle, homosexual marriage if that is what a majority of Americans also supported.  Or – gays and lesbians can fall and collapse back into themselves and lose everything they have fought so hard to attain for so many decades.  It is all a matter of priority, and what is most important to gays and lesbians.  Fighting a losing battle, or accepting that gay marriage is not realistic right now, but may be, and would have a better chance of being real, in the future if they were more patient.

Nancy Pelosi, the Iron-ing Lady, is willing to push back the gains made by gays and lesbians for her own personal agenda.  How is that working for homosexuals, and improving upon the homosexual cause, in America?

It’s Getting So You Have To Let The Man Molest Your Daughter Right Before Your Eyes

By now we’ve all heard about the case in Texas where a father who witnessed his daughter being molested by an unidentified perpetrator attacked, and then killed him.  We also know he has not been charged with any crime, yet.  What you may not have known is that there is actually a civil rights group in Texas that is seriously questioning the actions of the father, and is somewhat perplexed and appalled that he has not been charged with a crime for killing the man whom he witnessed molesting his daughter.

Speaking with FoxNews.com in a Tuesday report, James Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project in Austin, said the father had every right to defend his daughter, but had summarily crossed the line.  “Assuming it’s true that this guy was molesting the daughter, and we don’t know what exactly happened at this point, he would then have the right to defend [her], and hit him enough to have him stop. But you cannot summarily execute him, even though I can understand the anger he would have,” Harrington said.

Now, Harrington ought to know that Texas, of all places, is not where you want to fight to take away freedom and independence, and the right to defend yourself and your family.  To even suggest that in Texas is fighting words.  However, liberals don’t like the idea of anyone defending themselves.  Their motto is:  It’s better to die a victim than to live and know you are a killer.  One might ask the logical question, why didn’t the father have a gun nearby?  Good question!

Americans have a Constitutional right to defend themselves, their property and their family from harm.  Sometimes that means taking a life.  But it’s important to remember that the life being taken, in self-defense, has a free will of its own.  That life did not need to cross paths with anyone in order to solicit malicious, mischievous, immoral and evil tidings.  In other words – you reap what you sow.  If it is a matter of either saving your family from harm, or bowing to the “civil rights” of the offender while they are in the act of committing harm, isn’t it logical that for most people, the “civil rights” of the offender would not even enter their mind until sometime afterwards, if at all?  And then, after they got through defending themselves or their family, after the shock wore off and they had regained their faculties, wouldn’t they be more inclined to just say the hell with civil rights?

A man made a conscious decision to molest a child.  Another man, the child’s father, made a conscious decision to defend his daughter.  In the process the father killed the molester.  Should the father have merely pushed the offender off his daughter and hope the offender would run away?  Is that how it works in real life?  Should the father, by law, have to give the offender a chance to redeem himself, to give himself up and await the arrival of the police to come and pick him up and take him to jail?  Is that how it works in real life?  Should the father have to, by law, allow the offender to defend himself?

Should the father, by law, be forced not to second guess what the offender might do next, should he be given a second chance to do something next?  And why should the offender, by law, be granted the time to do something next?  And what happens if that “something next” is to pull out a weapon, a gun or knife, perhaps, and use it on the father and on the daughter?  There is your argument for allowing the offender to molest your daughter before your eyes while you stand aside and watch.  She gets raped, but nobody gets killed.  Isn’t that, to liberals, the lesser of the two evils?

Liberals are more than happy to have the offender finish his or her job, but dare anyone try to defend themselves, their families, neighbors or even perfect strangers from being harmed, and liberal so-called civil rights groups come down hardest on the defender rather than the offender.  Liberal courts are no better.  especially if the offender is a minority and the defender is white, or even white Hispanic.  (That was a deliberate tie in to the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman case.)

By all means, gather all the facts in this child molestation case.  But for goodness sakes, show some common sense.  Virtually no one who witnesses their child being molested by someone is going to call 911 first and then try to go and save their child.  That doesn’t happen in the real world.  But if we don’t stand up to phony civil rights groups and liberals who hate the idea of anyone practicing self-defense, that will happen, it will be real and will be a part of our real world.  How does that grab you?

Why The American Left Will Lose Every Battle It Wages Against Conservatives

The American Left is imploding on itself, which is a good thing not merely because this implosion helps conservatism, but because an implosion, as opposed to an explosion, only harms the Left themselves, and has no negative affects on anyone else. We saw the Left begin to implode during its Operation Occupy Wall Street, and all the subsequent “Occupy” protests that followed throughout America.  We saw the Left implode in Seattle, where it resorted to vandalism and property destruction; we saw the Left implode in Chicago during the NATO conference; and now we are seeing the Left implode in Portland, where a group of them, their mouths taped shut, sat in on a speech given by Erik Stakelbeck.  What was their reason for sitting in, and why did they think their strategy of taping their mouths shut would accomplish anything?

When an avowedly Christian, pro-Israeli anti-terrorism expert comes to speak at a university that’s located in Portland, fireworks should be expected. Unfortunately for a group of protesters who decided to stage a walkout against terrorism expert Erick Stakelbeck, those fireworks blew up in their face.”

Watch the video:

Giving someone the “silent treatment”, as a form of protest, is a sheer act of cowardice.  What that does is prove that the Left neither has anything valid to say, nor can it adequately defend its position, which, because they are liberals, is based purely on unstable and irrational emotions rather than build upon a foundation of substantive facts.  The Left would not debate conservatives because they know they cannot, and they know they if they did, they would not be successful.  In other words, how does the taping of mouths help demonstrate the quality of their argument against conservative principles, the proof of their argument against conservative principles, without ever uttering a word against conservative principles?  How does anyone win a debate without ever uttering a single word?

Of course, they fully believe they did win, or at least, drove home their point.  Watch and listen to their discussion:

The sheer lack of anything intelligent, anything provocative, anything other than juvenile (and less than amateur)  in their remarks shows that they could not have held their own in a debate against Stakelbeck or in any debate against any conservative.  This is why and how the Left implodes on itself.  Now – these students obviously did not come to all these conclusions themselves.  They were taught to think this way by other Leftist educators and instructors in the schools and universities they attend.  Portland is, after-all, one of the most Leftist/liberal leaning cities in America.

What is fascinating, from a conservative outlook, is that while it is easy for a Leftist/liberal educator to brainwash a young person’s mind with lies, gross misinformation and nonsense, these same Leftist/liberals educators cannot seem to remove the emotional aspects from their rhetoric and replace that (emotions) with anything of a factual nature.  Why would that be?  And – although we know that, in the short-term, emotion-based propaganda can sway the masses to the Leftist side, how does it help the Leftist cause in the long run not to use facts?

Facts are what trip up Leftists, leave them tongue-tied, and the reason why they cover their mouths with tape instead of debating why think Stakelbeck is, and conservatives in general are, “racist”.  We’ve long known Leftists have infiltrated the American educational system, and have been inculcated within the system for decades.  They are banking on their majority influence in education as the means to further their Leftist agenda.  The problem with this  is – eventually these brainwashed kids leave those institutions and embark out into the real world, where they discover all they have been taught is in direct conflict and opposition to what is actually occurring outside those Leftist walls of higher learning.

While Leftists can “coddle” their young within the safety of the educational system, they cannot protect them after they have left the Leftist nest.  On their own, they easily crumble and fall apart.  And, as evidenced by these two videos, some of them, at least, easily crumble and fall apart even while still remaining within the safety of their Leftist nest.

Where does anyone see conservatives and conservative principles, ideals and values crumbling anywhere?  Where does anyone see conservatives taping their mouths shut, afraid to debate with Leftists?  Where does anyone see conservatives and conservatism imploding anywhere, and to the extent that Leftism and liberalism is in America?

When all a cause has is a mountain of lies to stand on, and atop of, and those lies begin to crumble and break apart, where else can that cause go, and the people who supported that cause but down into that open crater, that deep emptiness, left by those lies?

Kent State “Massacre” Not As Important/Relevant Or “Popular” To America History

In 1970 four people became casualties of an anti-war movement sweeping across America.  Two, Allison Krause and Jeffrey Miller, were specifically protesting, while two others, Sandra Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder, were merely walking to their next class.  For Sandra and William a deep, sincere tragedy indeed, but – how do their deaths inspire an Arianna Nation S.S. writer, Jesse Kornbluth, to say that these four deaths are “the most popular murders ever committed in America“?  And if he is to call the killings “murder” would he also lay blame for those murders on the protesters themselves?  You could probably count your chickens before that happens.

After-all, it was a very violent protest.

May 1st – Trouble exploded in town around midnight when people left a bar and began throwing beer bottles at cars and breaking downtown store fronts. In the process they broke a bank window, setting off an alarm. The news spread quickly and it resulted in several bars closing early to avoid trouble. Before long, more people had joined the vandalism and looting.  By the time police arrived, a crowd of 120 had already gathered. Some people from the crowd had already lit a small bonfire in the street. The crowd appeared to be a mix of bikers, students, and transient people. A few members of the crowd began to throw beer bottles at the police, and then started yelling obscenities at them.  (This from the very liberal and progressive, not a loyal supporter of conservatives or conservatism, Wikipedia)

If anything, the Kent State Massacre was a precursor to what we are seeing in America today with the “Occupy” crowd, and their violent anti-American terrorist-style activities.  And the deaths of these four people, especially the deaths of Sandra and William, were directly caused by the protesters themselves, not police, as liberals, like Kornbluth, would romanticize.

Police have a duty and a responsibility to keep order and civility.  When a large crowd of people become violent and out of control and begin vandalizing property, hurling rocks and beer bottles at police, which can be just as deadly as a bullet, what the hell are police supposed to so?  Stand there and let the vandalism continue?  Allow themselves to be sitting targets and possibly killed?  This police force had families, wives and children, of their own too.  Did the Kent State protesters ever give that any consideration?  Do any protesters give that the least bit of consideration?  Do the Occupy protesters of today give that any consideration?  Or are these types of violent protesters, by their very nature, by their own insatiable arrogance and corruptibility, their yearning for destruction and chaos and disorder, blind-sighted to reality?

The Kent State Massacre (and “massacre” is the wrong word to use.  They were deaths, at most killings, two of which, Allison and Jeffrey, could be considered justified.) may have had an impact on America, (a mere ripple in the water at best), but it is not as meaningful, as important, as worth remembering, and certainly not as “popular” as say the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, or any U.S President.  Nor was it in the same league of monumental importance (the sizematic consequences equivalent to a magnitude 10 earthquake or the impact left in the wake of the meteor which killed off over 90% of life on Earth 65 millions years ago) as was the first shot fired that started the American Revolutionary War or the American Civil War.  When we attribute misplaced empathy for violent protesters we justify their actions and embolden future agitators.

May 2 – City officials and downtown businesses received threats while rumors proliferated that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and university.  (Also from the very liberal Wikipedia)

Had it not been for the extremely violent nature of the protesters, what happened at Kent State could have been avoided entirely, and Sandra and William could both be alive today.  Where is the commentary on that?  Nobody, at least in the liberal media, ever blames the protesters directly for the destruction, the mayhem, the millions of dollars in property damage they themselves cause.  Where is the commentary on that?

Why on Earth would anyone consider the deaths of four people, two of whom were contributing protesters, “the most popular murders ever committed in America”?  Obviously Kornbluth has intentionally disregarded an incredible bulk of American history, and he is hoping we will do the same.

Says Kornbluth:

“Kent State is America’s Tiananmen Square.”

Except the protesters at Tiananmen Square were not the least bit violent.  Kornbluth does an evil disservice comparing the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests with the Kent State “Massacre”.

And Kornbluth opines:

“It looks as if the killings at Kent State are moving inexorably from tragedy into history.”

And that is exactly where it belongs – as a side note, a footnote, relegated to a section of American history under the category of Vietnam Era Protests.  Because if we continue to give credence and credibility, empathy and sympathy, support and over concern for, and a media outlet to, dead protesters who commit, who participate and engage in, acts of violence and terrorism against America and American interests, we do more to further their insane cause and provide them with an unnecessary platform, a gateway into the minds of other impressionable, uncertain, doubtful American youths looking for something, anything they can latch onto to secure their own fifteen minutes of fame; to be heard, to have a voice, to be, and to amount to, something, even if that something is anti-Americanism.  That is the epitaph of the Kent State “Massacre”.

Liberals and Democrats justify the violence of the protesters at Kent State just as they justify the violence of the protesters of the “Occupy” movement.  How many more Americans are justifying their participation in the “Occupy” movement, and their violent behavior, because of Kent State, all the anti-American Vietnam War protests, and all the violent, chaotic, disruptive, uncivilized, vigilantist, anarchist, anti-American protests since?  How many more Americans (American youth in particular) have renounced their allegiance to America because of what happened at Kent State, what they have been falsely educated to believe about the Vietnam War and because they are emboldened and inspirited by Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Barack Obama to be and to become even more violent?

Was the Kent State “Massacre” really worth four dead people to protesters trying to protest America’s involvement in a war they disapproved us being in?  Or were their deaths a “necessary evil” that helped put the spotlight on an unpopular war?  If you could ask them (those that protested at Kent State), if they could turn back the clock and prevent the protests at Kent State from ever occurring if it would mean saving the lives of Allison, Jeffrey, Sandra and William, – what would they say?  What would Kornbluth say?  And what then would Kornbluth have left to turn to decry as the “most popular murders in America”?

Is Martin Luther King’s Dream Dead?

When are we going to actually start judging people by “the content of their character” in America and not by the “color of their skin”?  The recent attacks of blacks against whites, the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident, and the whole “justice for Trayvon” mentality washing over America right now is good indication that we still have a long way to go.  Of course, it does not help “race” matters to have race baiters and hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton egging people on.  Nor does it help “race” matters to have the New Black Panther Party openly put a bounty on the head of George Zimmerman and be allowed a free pass from the federal government.  Nor does it help “race” matters to have Louis Farrakhan and the so-called Rev. Jeremiah Wright spouting their anti-white rhetoric.  All of this has culminated into creating an angry black mob attack against a white man whom people in authority are saying has absolutely nothing to do with race, racism, or Trayvon Martin.  Are we, black and white, really that stupid to believe that?

(From Society Bytes)

Mobile, Alabama Mob Attack Against Owens Was Racial, And “Justice For Trayvon Martin” Was A Motivating Factor

An arrest has been made in the Matthew Owens mob attack that left him in critical condition.  A man by the name of Terry Rawls has been arrested.  According to witnesses, the attack was really only between Owens and Rawls, who have had a verbal war, or sorts, going on for three years.  On the day of the attack, apparently some kids were out in the street playing basketball and Owens confronted them.  The kids went back and told their parents, and they all gathered together and went to see about Matthew Owens.  Now the scene is set.  We have our mob of 20 black attackers going to confront Owens because he “fussed” about some kids playing basketball in the street.  (Is that the best and most appropriate place to play basketball or anything else?)  Allegedly racial slurs were slung – but the article does not say who slung them.  In any event tensions escalated to the point were this mob of 20 blacks stopped their verbal assault and began to physically assault Owens with “paint cans, pipes and chairs”.  Also, witnesses claim a women screamed from her car as she was leaving, “That’s justice for Trayvon”.  Now, here we have an instance where there are witnesses, but they are being dismissed.  Yet, there are no witnesses to the Trayvon Martin killing (expect George Zimmerman, who admits killing him, but in self-defense), and yet conclusions have already been drawn about Zimmerman’s guilt.  Let’s assume, for a moment, that the witnesses who made that claim were mistaken.  What was the motivation for 20 blacks to beat up one white person?  Because he told some kids not to play basketball in the street?  Yikes!  How many times do any of us see kids doing something they ought not to be doing because it is dangerous to them and could damage someone’s property?  Wasn’t there a time when we could tell kids to get off the street without worrying about being killed, or near to it,  and they did get off the street?  And their parents scolded the kids for being out in the street, not the person who told them to get off the street?  Or does that only happen on “Leave it to Beaver”, or a television program from the wholesome 1950′s?  And why, if there had been tensions between Owens and Rawls for three years, did it take a mob of 20 blacks to bring it to a climax?  Neighbors do have words with one another over issues. And apparently he and Rawls had had physical altercations before, and police were called, but charges never filed.  What was it about that particular day, that was different from any other day in the previous three years this has been going on?  In other words – had the Trayvon Martin incident never occurred, would a mob of 20 blacks really have gotten together and beat the hell out of a white man because he told their kids not to play basketball in the street?  But Mobile Mayor, Sam Jones, rejects the notion that this crime was in any way racially motivated, or even a hate crime, or spurred on by the Trayvon Martin incident.  So too does Corporal Chris Levy, who is with the Mobile Police Department.  He said, “I can tell you without a doubt 100 percent that the Trayvon Martin case was not the motivating factor.  That 100 percent, it is an ongoing incident between people who have been fighting for a few years now.”  Really?  Let that be a lesson to any of you to think twice when you confront kids out in the street playing basketball, or any game, and doing things they ought not to be doing out in the street because it is dangerous and they could get hurt, and/or damage the cars out there.  First check and make sure they are the same color as you.  (You might still get beaten up, but at least race cannot be claimed as a factor)  And second, make sure there hasn’t been another Trayvon Martin incident in the news for a while that the kids’ parents can use as an excuse and as “justice” when they come to beat you up.  When the day comes when it is a mob of twenty whites beating the hell out of a black, and where one of them is “allegedly” shouting “that’s justice for Zimmerman”, can we expect a mayor, a police officer, anyone of authority, to insist “100 percent” that race and racism was not a motivation or a factor?  And if they did, couldn’t we expect to see that mob grow just a little bit overnight?

What the hell do we have to do in America to revive King’s “Dream”?

Get Over It! Mutilating Girls Is Not Just A Rite – It’s A Right! (Or Do You Beg To Differ?)

"happy" girl undergoing FGM

Accept itmutilating girls, in their teens and barely out of the womb, cutting and slicing their genitals with a precision learned over hundreds of generations, sewing them up tight until their wedding night, and leaving  only a small opening for them to pass urine and blood, is a rite of passage and a right itself that cannot be challenged.

Another "happy" girl undergoing FGM

Live with it – taking a girl to an undisclosed location, against her will or not, to a private room where other woman are “waiting”; undressing her, prepping her for the “doctor” without her fully understanding why; lying her down and utilizing the other women in the room to hold her down, (blind folding her if necessary); and, without any anesthesia or anything to dull the pain, plunging the sharp instrument into her fleshy and sensitive genitalia to remove that part of her anatomy associated with “sin” is a practice that cannot be infringed upon.  It happens in America too

And another "happy" girl undergoing FGM

Ignore itthese girls who undergo female genital mutilation (FMG) are not your children writhing in excruciating pain and unbearable agony, screaming out in terror for their mother, somebody in that room, to stop what they are doing to them.  What goes in that room, to that girl, stays in that room, and is none of your business.  They have a right to privacy without you trying to intervene to stop it or them.  These people have the right to continue this thousands of years old practice unimpeded, unhindered by you, and over your, biased objections.

Who are you to think you can prevent it?

Either the above is absolute fact, or it is not.  If it is absolute fact, then untold millions more girls will be forced to undergo female genital mutilation for generations and generations to come, while untold, undocumented, numbers of those girls will die, either from blood loss, severe trauma, or any number of health related infections.  If it’s not absolute fact, if it’s just that much wrong, if you are just too undecided, wavering between honoring a “sacred, traditional and religious rite” and what more and more people around the world, including those people living within societies that practice FGM, are realizing is a “human right” to not be mutilated for being female, watch this video:

Ladies and gentlemen – we as human beings have but two options in dealing with the issue of female genital mutilation.  One, we can indeed ignore it, live with it and accept it, shrug our shoulders and tell ourselves that this practice is not of our culture, not of our traditions, not of our religious teachings, not a part of our social norms and therefore none of our business.  Two, we can throw all that nonsense to the wayside and make it our business.

If we choose the latter, do we have the courage to take on a very powerful element in this world that will become, not merely insulted, but very violent and attack us should they feel they, and their religious ideals and practices, are being threatened?  Female genital mutilation is not done for one single health related reason.  It is purely religious, and predominately, vastly so, an Islamic practice.  Are we prepared to attack that part of Islam, or any religion, that supports, compels and commands their female populations have their genitals mutilated and sewn up until they are married to ensure they remain chaste and pure and virgin?

Conservatives support males and females abstaining from sex until marriage, but there is not a serious American conservative that supports FGM.  It is an atrocity; an abomination; an inhumane practice.  One in which either needs to be put to a stop from within those societies that practice it, or (if they refuse, or cannot do it without additional aid) from those societies that find FGM so abhorrently unnecessary, so unwarrantably, excruciatingly painful and agonizing an ordeal, and diametrically opposed to all rational, reasonable and medical advice and knowledge.

We have no qualms entering a society to provide food, clothes, medicine, education and other services.  Why on Earth would we be uncomfortable entering a society to protect girls from being tortured by having their vaginas mutilated, cut apart and sewn up because the male population of that society dictates it be done to ensure virginity?

We have no qualms calling into question, and ridiculing, ancient religious practices once performed by the predecessors of Christianity, Catholicism and Judaism, but now scorned and abandoned and outlawed by the vast, vast majority of its modern-day descendants.  Why on Earth would we be squeamish about calling into question, and ridiculing, current religious practices that continue to mutilate, and kill, girls that have no basis in any religious teachings, but which serve solely to keep in tact the concept of a male dominated society?

If female genital mutilation is more a crime against humanity than it is a rite of passage, then we ought not be so overly worried or concerned about insulting those people, societies and cultures that engage in this atrocious practice.  It is they that need the wake up call.  It is us that must sound the alarm.

Either we can get over our apprehensions, our insecurities and fear of retribution, and start pushing for very harsh and unbearable sanctions, restrictions, and other calculated pressure, on those societies which still practice female genital mutilation, or – we can get over the fact that this practice is still extant.

Millions of girls around the world about to have FGM done to them are awaiting our decision.  Scores, and hundreds of millions more girls, not yet born, will want a decisive answer as well.  The wait may have been funny in Caddyshack. 

Is the wait funny in real life?

(This poll is multiple choice)

  Related articles

Why The MSM Desperately Needs George Zimmerman To Be Guilty, Trayvon Martin To Be Innocent

Until George Zimmerman turns himself in, it will be difficult to have and to find the answers to all the many questions swirling around this bizarre and baffling murder-mystery.  Until that happens, wild, rampant (and very violent) speculation will continue.  Of course, if you were George Zimmerman, and you had a one million dollar bounty on your head, placed there by a hate group – the New Black Panthers – would you be eager to turn yourself in, risking an all out assault by an angry mob looking for “street justice”?

At The Daily Beast, they are calling how some in the media are portraying Trayvon Martin as slander.  Nowhere in the article, by the way, is there any reference to slander being waged against Zimmerman, whom the MSM still regards as either a white Hispanic, or simply white.  If his name was Jorge and not George, what then might the reaction from the MSM be?

How can we explain the startling ferocity of the efforts to portray Trayvon Martin as a thug?

In attempting to piece together the “why” part of the Trayvon Martin story, and without having access to Martin (because he is dead) or Zimmerman (because he is in hiding, for fear of his life) it is only natural for reporters and investigators to search Trayvon’s past for clues as to what might have led to this unfortunate circumstance.  Why does anyone feel uncomfortable that Trayvon’s life is being researched and scrutinized?  If he was white, nobody would care.  It’s only the MSM and liberals who are up in arms.  But what can’t be overlooked or denied is the fact that Trayvon did have a criminal past, however small a role that played in his life.

We don’t yet know who the real aggressor was.  We don’t yet know who attacked who first.  We don’t yet know who was following who, or why.  We don’t yet know who the guilty party is.  However, that the MSM is outraged with some people who have allegedly jumped to conclusions and have accepted Trayvon is the guilty party, because he is black, is in itself slander and racist.  And that the MSM would ignore any evidence, any facts, anything at all that might point the finger at Trayvon, because he is black, is gross negligence and bias.

Wearing a hoodie does not make one a thug any more than “walking while black” does, or being black.  It is the American Left, liberals and the MSM that have jumped all over this story, and jumped the gun on this story, because Trayvon is black.  It’s all about sensationalism to the MSM, because Trayvon is black.  Isn’t that racist?  The MSM blames conservatives for Trayvon’s death.  Isn’t that biased?

Any comment on the Martin case must be prefaced, of course, by the acknowledgment that we’re still operating with a real deficit of information here. Other than the video and audio recordings we’ve seen and heard, everything else is rampant speculation. But the rumors themselves are still worth examining because of what they can tell us about how the human mind works during a major news event.

But still go ahead and play the “slander” game anyway?  The MSM has no qualms with painting Zimmerman as the guilty party, and blaming conservatives squarely for Trayvon’s death, despite this “real deficit of information here”.  The MSM will not even acknowledge there is a bounty placed on Zimmerman by the New Black Panthers.  But if a white person or group put a bounty on Obama, on Spike Lee (for his erroneous Zimmerman home address tweet), on any black American, what would be the end result of that?  No one from the New Black Panthers has been arrested.  Spike Lee was not arrested for endangering the lives of the occupants living at the address he tweeted.  Not even Al Sharpton has been arrested for inciting violence and encouraging mob action.

Black Americans, especially those who are outwardly and outspokenly, liberal have been accorded a free pass by the MSM, who are scared to death that by criticizing them they might inadvertently offend them.  Black Americans do commit crimes, for reasons other than revolving around America’s “racist” past.

But while race is undeniably a factor in the power of the rumors, it’s not the only one, and the connection between race-related feelings and rumor-mongering is more complicated than it appears at first glance. If we’re actually going to understand why the Martin rumors exploded, we’re going to need some more-nuanced explanations.

The “rumors” exploded thanks large in part to the MSM itself, which jumped on the “George Zimmerman is guilty, Trayvon Martin is innocent because he is black” bandwagon.  It is not inconceivable that when the MSM learned the name of Trayvon’s shooter, which by all accounts is a white, Anglo-Saxon sounding name, the MSM saw an opportunity – rare, by the way – to expound and pounce upon, and take advantage of, a ratings boom.  “White man murders black teen“.  That is all the MSM initially saw.  Of course, once it was learned that Zimmerman was, at least in part, Hispanic, by then there was no going back for the MSM.  This is why they have no choice but to continue digging themselves into a deeper hole, hoping to break daylight at some point, or at least stir up the black community in large enough numbers, hoping that will justify their own continued use of “slander” and bias against Zimmerman, and hoping that race baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jacskon, Spike Lee, Louis Farrakhan and the New Black Panther Party will divert attention onto themselves and away from the shoddy, yellow journalism and horrendous coverage by them, the MSM.

Psychology is our friend here.

And what a friend it could be to the MSM, which desperately needs to have its own head examined for the way in which it has covered Trayvon Martin.  Slander?  It’s ironic the MSM uses that word.  Ironic because while they engage in slander all the time against conservatives, they have no idea the real definition of the word.  They just know it, and throwing the word out there, is controversial and a ratings winner for them.  The MSM desperately needs George Zimmerman to be guilty (not necessarily found guilty by a court) and for Trayvon to be innocent to save its own face from embarrassment and humiliation for blindly jumping into this story before it read the details.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is – liberals want George Zimmerman (a perceived white man) to be found guilty of killing, and murdering, Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, and to have “street justice” done to him.  Conservatives want the guilty person, whoever that may be, to be found out, and have justice, as defined by American law, to be done to him.  See the difference?

No Charges, No Outrage, For Two Americans Who Burned The Holy Qur’an; Let Go, Not Arrested, Not Prosecuted

Two Americans who burned a holy book on church property, they said for an art class which instructed them to “do something highly controversial”, and because they don’t agree with the faith or its teaching, have not been charged with doing anything illegal.  The act was photographed, and as police came to question them, while the act was still in progress, both ran.  Even though they did run, and were apprehended, police could find nothing in the law with which to charge them, thus were forced to release them.  Will the MSM pick up on this story, or ignore it like they always do?

You can read the article here.

(Correction, it was not the Holy Qur’an, it was only a Christian Bible)

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers

%d bloggers like this: