|
|
ARTICLE: Iraqi Mother Of Five Found Severely Beaten In California Home Dies | Fox News
COMMENTARY: This is obviously a huge evil and all the more so if it was a committed by someone who is violently anti-Muslim, not least because it hurts the cause of freeing ex-Muslims from the wrath of Islam. Spare no expense to find whomever did this.
Yet there is something very suspicious about this story. The family didn’t immediately give the “hate note” to the police, which is a huge red flag. It gave the police the note a good deal latter. In addition, the daughter of the victim—and I apologize if this turns out to be not the case—seems completely inauthentic in her over-acted interview on the local media station. Most suspicious of all is the down-playing of this story by national media. Even the Muslim terror-affiliated/”civil rights” group CAIR has nothing on it. Mind you, we are in the middle of the Trayvon Martin case, and the whole nation is on the lookout for hate crimes and “racism”. This wouldn’t be ignored if the media wasn’t hiding some bad news for Muslims. Once bitten, twice shy? This has the imprints of another Muslim honor killing being blamed on non-Muslims. Expect to see the family arraigned soon. Sorry, but practice evil and cry wolf too many times, and this is what people begin to think of you.
Critical reading for the political, philosophical and scientific cosmologist. Cost nothing more than searching endlessly on Amazon...  Enter BNW Bookshop
ARTICLE: Shooter of Florida teen not a racist, lawyer says | Reuters
COMMENTARY: Sorry, but this guy doesn’t look “white” even if you squint. But the leftist media is so desperate to make him white, they are going for it anyway. George Zimmerman is half Peruvian, and by the look of him, his mother must be full-blooded Incan. His father is Jewish (with the same name as Bob Dylan’s original name). Jews, while generally “white” are hardly the ethnic group the media was thirsting for to make the shooter into a neo-nazi.
Perhaps if the shooter’s mother was from Spain, the media could get away with calling him “white”, but she’s not, and he is not white, therefore, this is not an incident based in historical American racism. This sounds more like Brazilian-style racism. Racism between mixed groups, based in experience leading to distrust and stereotypes. By the way, the old picture of an 11-year-old Martin has a lot to do with driving this story. Would the full picture of the actual 6’3” teen on suspension from school change this story? 
(George Zimmerman)
Reuters is notoriously pro-Islamist (jihadist) and anti-Western in its reporting and opinion pieces. It’s invested in hate.
ARTICLE: Islam Watch – "Actually, Islam means berserk, not Peace"
COMMENTARY: Neo-berserkers from Blade Runner movie had more compassion than typical jihadi, yet both fixated on death, although for very different reasons. Neo-berserker wanted to live but was genetically programmed to die, while jihadi hates the world of his own making, and yearns for false paradise he simply takes the word exists for him at the expense of others.
 ARTICLE: We’ll fight to the bitter end for Las Malvinas: Argentine warning to ‘conquistador’ British as William lands in the Falklands | Mail Online
COMMENTARY: This is truly vile. The Falklands have been completely British since 1833. Previously, they were barren second-rate trophies passed around by the French, British and Spanish during the colonial era. The Falklanders are virtually all of British ethnicity, and want to remain so. Britain, especially England, is one of the most densely populated areas on Earth, with few open spaces like the Falklands. It is also one of the most successful in terms of civilizational advancements. Argentina, on the other hand, is a very large, sparsely populated country (several times larger than Britain, yet with half its population), which has given humanity very little in terms of real advancements. Yet, some Argentines–really fascist terrorists with a ludicrous sense of racist-like nationalism–are beating the war drums again to seize the Falklands. I can only imagine their faux-feelings of yearning for their beloved “Malvinas”, which they nor any other Argentine can authentically claim to have known, now or in history. In other words, this is pure Argentine jingoism. Liberate? Are they sick? Wait, yes, of course they are. But why isn’t Argentine Queen Cristina denouncing them as local vermin unworthy of attention? Well, because she’s one of them.
It’s clear from the article that as these mask-wearing Patagonian cowards go about smashing windows of British-owned stores, they have the full support of inept Argentine politicians. Let’s not forget, among the worst of crimes against humanity is when politicians intentionally cause the reversal of human progress:
From the article:
“As I reported last week in the Mail, in Stanley, the 2,000 people keep their streets immaculately clean. The houses are beautifully preserved; the shops are as well-stocked as possible given the islands’ isolation; and there is virtually no crime. The issue is especially sensitive as the 30th anniversary approaches of the liberation of the islands by Britain from an Argentine invasion. Contrast this with Ushuaia, a former prison colony that has grown rapidly in recent years as Argentina strives to develop its outlying regions. The first thing that strikes you is the utter disregard for the pristine environment. The stunning sea view is marred by a garish casino, supposedly built to resemble a whale’s tail, and other ugly, graffiti-daubed buildings. The foothills behind the city are scarred by an insanitary shanty town.”
—–
Argentine politicians threaten to reverse human progress in the Falklands. That’s criminal.
 By BNW Contributor, January 15, 2012
There’s been a lot of mea culpas from the government recently over a video of some Marines pissing on some dead Taliban.
First off, I don’t condone this fairly routine “gallows humor” that just happened to occur at the point in history when pocket cameras became pervasive, nor do I dramatize and “big up” the incident, to use a British expression. My position is pretty much identical to Congressman Allen West’s analysis—the Marine Corps should simply apply non-criminal UCMJ punishment to the Marines involved, i.e., put a permanent letter in each of their records which may hurt their careers, but will not destroy their lives. And as for those who are outraged, as West said, “Shut your mouth”, unless you’ve been fired on by the enemy.
Indeed, the same lot of critics cheered, as did I, during the film Saving Private Ryan, when American G.I.s shot the German soldiers raising hands in surrender. Now they are outraged by pissing on dead enemies who were previously shooting at these young Marines?
Granted, there are some technical reasons one scene is initially more shocking than the other. Shooting the live, surrendering Germans seemed more of a spontaneous outburst of anger, while pissing on the Taliban dead, without a lead-in, seemed more premeditated. The media is rarely that thoughtful, so fine details are generally lost, and the apologizers rarely have the guts to bring them up. Still, it’s an interesting contrast to compare these two battle scenarios.
The Taliban are primarily volunteers who view non-Muslims as filthy and unworthy of life. These jihadists have chosen to kill and be killed to further the goal of Islam, which is to dominate the world.
Now, let’s assume the Ryan movie example was based on real incidents, as I’m sure it was. The German soldiers were likely conscripts, not full-blown Nazis who architected the Holocaust, or even manned a concentration camp. They were probably clueless, hungry and scared. They were surrendering, following legal conventions by raising their hands. BANG!, they’re dead, and everyone in the theater is cheering, but for different reasons. Freedom-lovers are cheering for American soldiers and liberty. On the other hand, by 1998, when the film came out, leftist hatred of anyone “white” and Christian had matured to such ritualistic forms that the mere sight of killing them elicits cheers from leftists. America’s demise will come later, but in WWII America was needed as the lesser of two evils, in other words. If you don’t believe it, imagine if the scene was of American soldiers pissing on dead German ones. I can hear the audience laughter already. Or, imagine it was of Americans gunning down Japanese or communist Russian soldiers who were surrendering. First, it would likely not have been filmed in such a way as to beg for cheering, and second, if it had been, it would have been criticized as bad taste, jingoistic or racist. But killing Germans and other unprotected groups? Leftists say, bang on.
Hatred of common enemies is a stronger neural pathway than the obvious lack of common cause. And so it is with leftists and jihadists, both enemies of traditional Western liberalism, i.e., modern conservatives. Indeed, the left is morphing before our eyes, as the cancer of Islam metastasizes the body of secular progressivism and melds it into Islamic fascism. It’s very sad to see old school secular liberals at human rights rallies that have turned into anti-Semitic jihads against Israel, looking bewildered and uncomfortable among the rabid Islamist “friends” they earlier dragged home and gave succor. They seem to be wishing they were someplace else, like a bar, arguing over beers with their old school American enemies, the polite and non-lethal Christian right.
By Tomas Rome, January 15, 2012
Ron Paul
Let me start out by saying, the order of these opinion pieces is basically the same as the order of the candidates rankings in recent polls, not my own preferences.
That now said, let me discuss Ron Paul, starting with the good…
Paul is a medical doctor and a veteran, which are fine qualities, the former being a refreshing divergence from the stream of lawyers, businessmen, and celebrities (btw, isn’t it odd that leftist Hollywood’s only contribution to the Presidency is a Republican icon?), and more lawyers, that dominate politics in general.
Paul’s general ideas of limited government and limiting intervention abroad should be common sense, not an ideological POV. Government is the tool that the private sector creates to do together in a given region that which can’t be done separately, such as common defense, road and port construction, and regulation of limited resources, etc. But “Frankenstein government” is what occurs when those who choose to “serve” in government decide they will be the providers of all other things as well, not businesses. Beyond its horrible record of manufacturing products like shoes and toothpaste, government also has a very spotty record in foreign affairs. Just to take recent history, the last two administrations, despite themselves, have managed to stand up two Islamic fascist states, welcomed millions of unreformed Muslim immigrants from said states, and empowered Islamic fascists to eliminate Christians from Iraq, Pakistan, and other Muslim states, by the combined use of terrorism, Sharia law and political undermining of secular forces in the Middle East via so-called free elections and “Arab Springs”.
Paul also apparently believes in ending the war on drugs, yet he is not so libertarian to support abortion, even in limited circumstances. I suppose if one truly thinks abortion is murder, then his stance would be logically consistent with libertarianism. In that case, I call on Paul to support a trillion dollar program to stop “spontaneous abortions”, which are the end of up to 50% of pregnancies. After all, a zygotal person has as much right to government services as a post-partum person with cancer or AIDS, right?
Okay, I showed my hand. Paul’s good points are overshadowed by his nutty side. For instance, he has a problem with Santorum and Bachmann for having a problem with Islam. After 9/11 and the thousands of jihad attacks since, in disparate places, throughout the world, without any consistent theme except the Islamic precepts that the jihadists say is behind their attacks, the default position for every American, non-Muslim, and cultural Muslim should be to have a problem with Islam. But Paul calls such people bigots and Islamophobes, thereby echoing those who called critics of Hitler, Germanophobes. Indeed, Paul digs deeper by repeatedly saying that the United States foreign policy is to blame for 9/11, not radical Islam. This is proof positive that Paul knows nothing about Islam. Radical Islam is a zombie that attacks resistance, and colonizes the submissive methodically. The United States historically has been guilty of nothing more than not being a docile host for Islamic parasites, but even that is at risk now.
Paul’s foreign policy stance may in fact protect the United States despite himself, if his primary concern is protecting our perimeter and increasing freedom, rather than appeasing the haters of this world. I’m with Paul on demanding that Congress step up to the plate and vote if this country is to go to war, at least in all but the most imminent circumstances, which are apocalyptic and too dire to consider here.
The correct position with regard to radical Islam is to denounce all Islamic fascism directly, not merely “terrorism”, support true freedom—e.g., freedom of religion, speech, dress, privacy, etc., quarantine Islamic economics, take vital natural resources by force if necessary and share them among non-fascist states, and halt Muslim travel and immigration to free states. This applies to foreign affairs in general as well, simply by replacing Islamic words with other totalitarian ones.
Last but not least, Paul is 76, and will be 77 when elected. Reagan is the oldest person to be elected President, and he was “only” 69. Reagan was leaving office when Paul would be going in! Simply put, Paul is too old to be President! He should know better. He was in the Air Force, where the maximum entry age is only 27, even if it was for a desk job. The Presidency isn’t for someone who has a statistically high chance of being infirm, senile, or dead. Sorry to be blunt, but the truth sometimes ain’t pretty!
NOTE: While I’m developing a theory that none of today’s candidates has any business being President, as well neither did nearly all past Presidents (exceptions: The Founder Presidents, Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover(!?!) ), until the unlikely day comes when Presidents must have rigorous qualifications like other jobs, I must discuss this bunch.
By Tomas Rome, January 14, 2012
For the first articles on the revived Brave News World, I need original bulk content, quickly. What’s more apropos than to start off with a stream-of-conscious opinion pieces on the qualifications—or lack thereof—of the contenders running for President?
Mitt Romney
First, I’m not down on anyone who seems so Presidential he must be from Central Casting. Some people seem to hold this against him, for whatever cynical and warped reason of mental inversion that turns good into bad, and vice versa. As long as Romney has the grades, his “great hair” is fine by me—not that I even noticed, until reading all the sarcastic comments about it.
So what of Romney’s grades then? Well, the man got A’s as a double masters major in law and business at Harvard, which is a heck of a lot better than the “gentleman’s C’s” the last few Ivy Leaguers running for President received. So, it appears he’s smart in the right subjects, or at least two of them.
But is he Presidential material? Well, he’s been quite successful in both business and government, and shown himself a leader. He had a tough gig with the Winter Olympics in Utah, and turned a potential disaster into a success. He proved he can hang with and lead a group of greedy son-of-a-bitch capitalists (meant in the best possible way), yet still keep his integrity and morality. That’s not easy. His stint as governor of Massachusetts may have been a fairly easy job in comparison, especially while the economy was good, but he did a good job nonetheless. But it was his accomplishments as a young Mormon missionary in France in the sixties that is most impressive to me. He managed to turn around a shop with low morale and almost no converts into one that was quite successful. I mean, this is post-Catholic, secular France, for G-d sake, and he met his quota and more! That’s my definition of success.
Okay, truth in commentary—I’ve been a supporter of Romney for a whole month or so now. That’s despite counter-jihad blogger Pamela Geller’s criticism of Romney as clueless about Islam—a Bush II (III?) in other words. The reason I didn’t buy that is because Romney has Walid Phares, a counter-jihad expert of Lebanese background, on his team. I know Phares is not going to steer Romney wrong. That, and Romney is a practicing Mormon. There’s no way he’s going to carry that weight around all his life, only to surrender his church to Islamic fascists. Really, anyone who belittles Romney’s silver spoon youth ought to first consider living 64 years as a Mormon in good standing. A childhood living on a tight budget, as seemly all the other candidates claim to have lived, sounds a heck of a lot easier than growing up suffering anti-Mormon bigotry—from both the left and the right—as well as practice strict dietary, moral and religious rites. Yet, the man has done it with style. By the way, I feel a little vindicated today about supporting Romney, as he was just endorsed by John Bolton, a big friend of Geller.
Then there’s the flip-flopping charge. Frankly, Romney’s “flip-flopping” is somewhat comforting, as it shows he is flexible. I have no doubt he is a true conservative, but he seems to know when to yield a battle to the other side, in order to win the war. That’s called pragmatism.
NOTE: While I’m developing a theory that none of today’s candidates has any business being President, as well neither did nearly all past Presidents (exceptions: The Founder Presidents, Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover(!?!) ), until the unlikely day comes when Presidents must have rigorous qualifications like other jobs require, I must discuss this bunch.
|
|
|
Reader Comments