Archive for Media Morons

French Jews Depart For Israel And The French Are Having A Tough Time

This morning was lovely. First I saw this at CNN, about record numbers of French Jews saying au revoir! Any Jewish person who hasn’t thrown Leftist acid in their own eyes has seen this, but it is nice that the media sees fit to mention it:

Yoav Krief remembers the day he knew it was time to move to Israel: January 9, 2015.

It was a Friday. Four Jews had just been killed in the Hyper Cacher, a kosher supermarket in Paris, two days after the Charlie Hebdo attack. One of them was Krief’s friend.

“I was not good, really not good,” Krief says of how he felt at the time. “I talked to my mom, and I said, ‘We must go to Israel. We need to go to Israel.'”

Krief, a French Jew who had just finished high school, moved to Israel with his family six months later, as part of the largest migration of Jews from Western Europe to Israel since the modern state of Israel was created. [The article could have said: …since WWII, but let that go… – Aggie]

Nearly 8,000 French Jews moved to Israel in the year following the Charlie Hebdo attack, according to the Jewish Agency, which handles Jewish immigration, or aliyah, to Israel.

The number of French Jews moving to Israel has doubled — and doubled again — in the past five years.

In 2013, less than 3,300 French Jews moved to Israel. Only two years earlier, that number stood at 1,900.

Many French Jews settle in Ashdod, a city in southern Israel known for its large French population.

You are as likely to hear French on the streets as you are Hebrew, especially in one of the city’s many French cafés.

“It’s great for me here, much better than France,” says Charly Dahan, a musician who moved to Israel from Paris two years ago.

“This is the first time in my life that I am relaxed. In France, I also felt good, but the situation and the current problems… it’s very difficult to live as a Jew in France,” he adds.

“While high-profile attacks such as those at the Jewish school in Toulouse in 2012, the Jewish museum in Brussels in 2014, and the kosher supermarket in Paris and the synagogue in Copenhagen last year have certainly been the most vivid instances of violence targeting French and European Jews, the French Jewish community has been living with a deep sense of insecurity for quite some time,” says Avi Mayer, spokesman for the Jewish Agency.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls recently expressed the fear that an exodus of Jews would change the country for the worse.

“Without the Jews, France is no longer France. It’s the oldest community. They have been French citizens since the French revolution,” he told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.

But when the European Union studied the prevalence of anti-Semitism in 2013, it found that 74% of Jews in France avoid openly identifying themselves as Jewish at least some of the time, and more than a quarter of French Jews always do.

Dov Cohen, a French Jew who left Marseille for Ashdod last summer, says he never wore his religious skullcap, or kippa, in public.

“You have to watch out,” Cohen says about his life in France. “You have to protect the children because of fights in the metro and on the buses. This pushed us to decide to make aliyah,” he says.

Ok, so that is the France that we’ve been describing for the entire ten years that we’ve kept the blog, right BTL? But this, from the NY Times, actually warms the cold cockles of my heart:

Before commencing, please note that the writer is the former editor-in-chief of Le Monde and currently the editorial director. That makes it ever so much sweeter.

We are reaching the end of the “Happy New Year” period which, in France, traditionally covers the whole month of January, and it’s a relief. In Paris, last year started and ended with devastating terrorist attacks. As we all expect another assault anytime anywhere, amid persistent economic gloom and an unsolved migrant crisis, wishing the best for 2016 has become an inconvenient rite. The French radio host Philippe Meyer has taken to wishing his listeners “a better year than the one we’re going to have.”

This minor discomfort happens to betray a deeper reality, which is only starting to sink in: The events of 2015 changed our lives in a much more fundamental way than we like to admit. By “events,” I mean more than the massacres at Charlie Hebdo, Hyper Cacher and the Bataclan. I mean the attacks in Tunis, Bamako, Jakarta, Istanbul, Ouagadougou, all those foreign places where Europeans and locals can be killed together. I mean the wars in Syria and Iraq, the millions of displaced people, the unstoppable flow of refugees to Europe, the enormous challenge of integrating them, as shown by the New Year’s Eve nightmare in Cologne. I mean our jihadist fellow countrymen and women. I mean the rise of the far right and populist parties. [In other words, the Euro-left doesn’t know whether to sh.t or turn further Left – Aggie

By “our lives,” I mean more than French lives. I mean German lives, Swedish lives, Danish lives, Greek lives — on top of all those involved outside Europe. All European Union countries — except maybe for a handful of post-Communist member states — are now affected by the terrorist threat or the migrant crisis, or both. Our hopes that the two could be distinct were dashed when the French police identified two of the Paris assassins as men who had arrived in Europe via the “migrant route.” [I’m channeling Jackie Gleason here: How Sweet It Is! – Aggie]

We are all Europeans, united by our geographic proximity to the chaotic Middle East, facing multiple challenges to our common cultural identity.

Part of our “new normal” is now visible. Soldiers have been protecting our synagogues and mosques for a year. We learned to open our bags for a security guard; now we also open our coats to show we are not hiding an explosive belt. The chiefs of police and emergency services have reassessed their priorities; editors have reassigned reporters. French Jews are debating whether to give up wearing a yarmulke following the terrorist slashing of a Jewish teacher in Marseille, or keep it on, defiantly: In a poll, 70 percent of the French say they should keep it. Germany has hired 8,500 teachers to help with some 200,000 children of foreign refugees entering the school system this year.

Politicians are busy reviewing legislation to give more powers to anti-terrorist forces. To deter migrants, Sweden has imposed checks on its border with Denmark, which has in turn imposed checks on its border with Germany. Proposals that would have seemed completely off the wall a year ago are now being discussed in all seriousness, like seizing cash and valuables from asylum seekers (Denmark), interning those who arrive without passports (Germany), or stripping French citizenship from dual nationals convicted of terrorist acts.

Terrorism and Europe’s biggest migration crisis since World War II frame the political debate in and among many E.U. countries. These twin problems also present formidable challenges for Brussels. All agree that the Union’s external borders should be secured, but who will secure them? All agree that national intelligence services don’t cooperate closely enough, but who will cede sovereignty on this sensitive activity? There is no common immigration or asylum policy, but how can we agree on one?

Beneath the surface of the new normal lie even more uncomfortable challenges. The public reaction to this situation, particularly in France and Germany, reveals a crucial dilemma: How, as a society, do we make necessary adjustments without betraying the values that define us? This question is at the heart of a passionate debate in France over where to stop the pendulum’s swing between security and liberty; many of those who cherish their liberties struggle with the feeling that, at the moment, they value their security even more. Political elites may hate it, but polls show that proposals like depriving certain terrorists of French citizenship enjoy popular support. [It’s okay to burst into laughter here; I won’t tell. – Aggie]

Mourad Benchellali, a French former Guantánamo inmate, who was released in 2004 and jailed in France until 2006, has experienced this changing sentiment first hand. Over the past few years, after writing a book, he has dedicated himself to preventing the radicalization of young Muslims. Now 34 and a father, he notices how feelings in France have hardened since the November attacks, which killed 130 people. “People are more reluctant to ask me to speak in schools or in prisons,” he told me recently. “Some are even canceling. After Charlie, people were worried about the government going too far with security. Since November, this is all they want.”

Soul-searching is not the order of the day; liberal intellectuals have been incensed by recent remarks by Prime Minister Manuel Valls, who equals “explaining” jihadism with “wanting to find ways to excuse it.”

The Germans are equally torn. Since the ghastly New Year’s Eve in Cologne, the celebrated Wilkommenskultur toward refugees has given way to serious doubts about how to integrate mass male migration, and to serious accusations against the police and the media. The cultural gap between a liberal, wealthy, secular Europe and a patriarchal, conservative, Muslim society has widened to an ocean. How long will it take to bridge it? How do you ensure that hard-won women’s rights and freedom are not endangered? How do you teach cultural norms?

These are difficult questions — and they are being asked all over Europe. There are no easy answers, only a few predictions: Jihadism will not be defeated in 2016, and war and misery in the Middle East and Africa will send ever more people across the Mediterranean — around 2,000 still arrive in Europe by sea every day.

So we’d better work together, set up common policies to secure our borders, fight terrorism, relocate refugees, and promote daring ideas for integration that will avoid ghettoization. The only response has to be a joint one: working separately would be foolish. If a 28-member European Union can’t do it, then let’s set up smaller groups. There is no more time to waste.

Sylvie Kauffmann is the editorial director and a former editor in chief of Le Monde.

Ahem. Let me give you the same advice that you and those of your ilk have given to Israel for the past 16 years: Show Restraint. It is fascist to close your borders or to take the few, pitiful possessions of the desperate immigrants who crowd what you so laughingly describe as your “borders”. We are all one world, remember that. People are mostly good if we let them be. What have you done to the poor immigrants and the terrorist citizens to make them hate you so much? Look in the mirror to understand this mess. We must to make accommodations for differences. If you hadn’t treated your Muslim population so horrifically in the past – in Algeria, in the banelieus (sp? means suburbs) – perhaps you could all sing the Marseillais (sp? who cares…) together! One other piece of advice: Locate those salt mines that the Nazis used to hide the loot and get all the art in your museums packed up and ready for quick storage. You can turn the museums into various shelters for the new immigrants.

PS: You know in the bible how they have various plagues? Boils, locusts, that kind of thing? It kind of reminds me of Europe today.

– Aggie


Switzerland, Despite The Alps, Will Always Be Low

Ethically in the toilet

Just remember, Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize!

Following the hijacking of two Swissair flights in 1970, the then Swiss foreign minister met in Geneva with senior officials of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) headed by Yasser Arafat, according to reports by the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), to negotiate diplomatic ties and form a pact to avoid further terror attacks on Swiss soil.

While full details of the agreement are protected by a 50-year statute of limitations, according to the report. The secret negotiations risked creating a diplomatic crisis with the United States, Britain, Germany and Israel.

The negotiations took place following the hijacking by Palestinian groups of two Swissair flights in 1970.

In February of 1970, a Swissair plane bound for Tel Aviv was blown up shortly after taking flight killing all 47 passengers on board.

On September 6, 1970, a Swissair flight en route to New York was hijacked by the PFLP, an affiliate of the PLO, and forced a landing at Dawson’s Field airstrip in Jordan.

The passengers were held for days and presented to television news crews from around the world, who were invited to hear the terrorists’ demands – the release of PLFP prisoners in Israel and in Europe.

The PFLP set a September 12 deadline for the release.

On September 11, one day before the deadline, over 200 of the hostages were transferred to Amman for release. But the Jewish passengers, along with the three flight crews, were separated and kept at the airstrip.

In a move designed to be both a media spectacle and to serve as a warning ahead of an expected assault by Jordanian army forces, on September 12, the PFLP blew up the explosive-laden planes. Almost immediately following the explosions, heavily-armed Jordanian troops advanced toward the airstrip, leading to a short stand-off.

Incidentally, Russia did the same thing, only it didn’t work. Germany de facto did the same by paying them off. But Switzerland must have given beaucoup bucks in return for no attacks on Swiss soil since 1970. I hope I live to see the details released.

Oh, and here’s a tidbit the Left doesn’t much want to discuss:

Jordan declared war on Palestinian groups in the country, a weeks-long battle that left thousands of Palestinian fighters and civilians dead. The episode was dubbed Black September.

The behavior of Switzerland, Russia, Germany, and our own government – the refusal to reject all terrorism, no matter what the “cause” – has led directly to ISIS. Blackmail works, guys. And blackmail has consequences that stretch out for decades.

– Aggie


You Suck

You know who you are:

He didn’t bawl.

His voice only roughened for a moment and he dabbed at a couple tears that straggled down his cheek. As displays of emotion go, it wasn’t all that much. But it was, of course, more than enough.

Inevitably, President Obama’s tears became the takeaway from last week’s White House speech on gun violence. They came as he recalled the 2012 massacre of six educators and 20 young children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“Every time I think about those kids,” said the president, tears shining on his cheek, “it gets me mad.”

One grows used to thinking of politics as a craft practiced mostly by people who are only technically human. One grows used to their cynical manipulations and insincere triangulations, to their poll-tested smiles, and focus-grouped quips. Which is why this moment was arresting. The president wept and it was a starkly human thing.

Or at least, that’s surely how most of us saw it. It is a sign of how angry and hateful our politics have become that some conservatives refused to accept the moment at face value.

Are you prepared for the depravity?

“I would check that podium for a raw onion,” sneered Andrea Tantaros of Fox “News.”

“He’s putting something in his eyes to create the fascist tears,” wrote John Nolte of Breitbart.

“#Crocodile Tears” tweeted actor James Woods.

One hardly knows how to respond. There isn’t even anger. There is only embarrassment for them, only amazement that some people are so bad at being, well . . . people.

We failed people-hood, too, if you remember:

In our defense, we stand united in opposition to the shooting of children. More than mad, we even get sad when we think about it. But how we feel—how Obama feels—about it is irrelevant. So are his policies. Only our suggestion would have made a difference at Sandy Hook Elementary—namely that an armed guard would have prevented or lessened the carnage that day. Drastic, sure; unworkable, possibly; but a retired cop or demobbed soldier or even an appointed teacher with a license and training would at least have had a shot (or six) to take out Adam Lanza. That’s a lot better than getting mad, I’m sure you will agree.

What good is getting mad, anyway, if all you do is retreat to the tired and the old? I got mad on 9/11, and I’ve never been the same. I was still a liberal (if in name only) when I woke up that morning; by 11 a.m. I was a card-carrying conservative. I was done with liberalism and self-loathing (at least done with liberalism) from that day onward. If that makes me a bad person, I can live with that.

And while I’m about it, I want to know why Obama hasn’t shed a tear for Kate Steinle, gunned down by the illegal alien for kicks in San Francisco; or for the cop in Philly shot repeatedly at point-blank range by a Muslim in an act of nothing-to-do-with-Islamic violence; or for any of the soldiers who died searching for the deserter, Bowe Bergdahl. Any one of those stories, three among a myriad, “gets me mad”, too.

Being a bad person is like eating a brussels sprout: once you get past the initial repugnance, you actually come to like it. Try it. Just one bite.


North Korea Claims To Have Detonated An H-Bomb

I won’t bother to link; it’s everywhere. But I have two questions for various O-bots: 1. Given that Bill Clinton did a deal with North Korea, similar to Obama’s Iran deal, and they promptly developed an A-bomb, and now, apparently an H-bomb, how quickly do you suppose Obama will gift us with an Iranian bomb? 2. Do you feel safer now?

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Dude, Where’s My Paper?

I link to this local-interest story not only out of schadenfreude, though it’s dripping with the stuff, but to make a larger point:

Boston Globe executives summoned managers of their new distribution partner to a meeting Sunday to discuss widespread delivery failures, but the day ended with finger pointing and no clarity about when all home subscribers could once again count on getting their newspapers.

Behind disruptions affecting up to 10 percent of daily subscribers are two basic problems, both sides said. ACI Media Group, which took over home delivery in Greater Boston last Monday, has yet to hire enough drivers to cover every route. And many of ACI’s new delivery routes lack any logical sequence, leaving drivers criss-crossing communities and making repeated trips to the same neighborhoods.

In an unprecedented grass-roots effort Sunday, scores of Globe employees from departments throughout the company voluntarily fanned out to distribution centers after midnight, taking over many of the 150 routes that had no drivers, delivering papers until late Sunday afternoon.

If the idea of home delivery of a newspaper strikes you as quaint in a wi-fi world, I get the Globe delivered at home. Also the Wall Street Journal. One I read for the sports, the other I read for everything else. You’re welcome, Boston Slob:

Globe chief executive Mike Sheehan said the newspaper undertook the switch from Publishers Circulation Fulfillment to ACI primarily in an effort to improve service and reduce the number of delivery cancellations due to service complaints. ACI also brings a “material” cost savings, he said, which Globe owner John Henry had intended to put back into the operation.

“All would be forgiven if the level of service could be restored [this week] to the way it was,’’ said Dan Kennedy, a journalism professor at Northeastern University who has written extensively about the newspaper business. “But if this drags on and on, and large numbers of people cancel the print edition, it does become an existential threat. The print edition is where the money comes from.”

That’s why I share this with you. The Slob presumes to preach to us how they believe the world works, yet they betray complete ignorance of their core business, and risk everything on the promise of better service for lower cost.

Any resemblance to the history of ObamaCare (which the paper cheerleaded) is purely accurate and intentional.

The Globe advertised that it was switching delivery services, and even solicited drivers to bid for routes that would become available. Current delivery personnel were not guaranteed to keep their jobs, no matter how long they had had them, or how well they had performed them. (Indeed, one long-time delivery guy couldn’t even get a call-back from the new company.) The paper seemed giddy at the prospect, but we were skeptical.

Change does not come without upheaval (any reseblance to ObamamCare…):

Klunder, however, said he warned Globe executives that the switch would be enormously difficult. Globe officials dispute his account of those conversations.

“I said ‘I cannot describe to you how painful it is,’?” Klunder said, recounting his warning to Globe officials. “I used the expression ‘massive disruption.’ . . . You’re going to get thousands of calls, e-mails — social media is going to be blistering you. The news media is going to be blistering you. You’re going to like where you are at the end of this cycle but you’re going to go through this.”

My service has been unaffected (except for the missing WSJ this morning), but I know someone who hasn’t received her morning paper once since the switch, getting only three, all after dark. She reads yesterday’s news over breakfast, a perfect metaphor for the Slob’s newsworthiness.

I can’t think of a worse business decision since almost ten years ago when a conservative blog launched with the word “liberal” in its name. Our readership might finally be approaching theirs.

PS: The paper’s owner, John Henry, made a fortune as a money manager (though that fizzled out three years ago). He bought the Gob for a song from the New York Times, which had hemorrhaged money since buying the rinky-dink title twenty years earlier. Henry also owns the Boston Red Sox, Liverpool FC, Roush Racing. Three World Series titles aside, he has demonstrated just as much acumen in those ventures as he has in the newspaper “business”.


More On Sweet Sammy

This is a description of what terrorist, Sammy Kuntar, did to one Israeli family. Today the media calls Kuntar a “militant”, but as recently as 2003, they were able to call him a terrorist and honestly describe why:

Abu Abbas, the former head of a Palestinian terrorist group who was captured in Iraq on April 15, is infamous for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro. But there are probably few who remember why Abbas’s terrorists held the ship and its 400-plus passengers hostage for two days. It was to gain the release of a Lebanese terrorist named Samir Kuntar, who is locked up in an Israeli prison for life. Kuntar’s name is all but unknown to the world. But I know it well. Because almost a quarter of a century ago, Kuntar murdered my family.

It was a murder of unimaginable cruelty, crueler even than the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, the American tourist who was shot on the Achille Lauro and dumped overboard in his wheelchair. Kuntar’s mission against my family, which never made world headlines, was also masterminded by Abu Abbas. And my wish now is that this terrorist leader should be prosecuted in the United States, so that the world may know of all his terrorist acts, not the least of which is what he did to my family on April 22, 1979.

It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border. Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already killed a police officer. As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door.

Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom; I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat. They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe. As I lay there, I remembered my mother telling me how she had hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust. “This is just like what happened to my mother,” I thought.

As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl’s skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.

By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.

This account is written by the mother of the two slain children, the wife of the man shot in front of his little girl. Today, if you read the “news” accounts of the incident, you don’t know any of this. And that is a measure of how far we have devolved as a society. We obfuscate terrorism and attack the victims. Our culture has ice water running through its veins.

– Aggie

Comments (2)

Useful Idiot

Thomas Friedman is always an idiot, but rarely useful.

Even a stopped clock finds a nut once in a while:

I had low expectations for the U.N. climate meeting here and it met all of them — beautifully. I say that without cynicism.

[W]e still have a chance to meet what scientists say is our key challenge: to avoid the worst impacts of global warming that we cannot possibly manage and to manage those impacts that we can no longer avoid. That is a big, big deal.

Many leaders had a hand in it, but it would not have happened without the diplomacy of President Obama and John Kerry.

What synergy! The climate deal (as well as Obama and Kerry) is revealed to be a worthless pile of goat dung because Friedman likes it, and Friedman is reaveled to be the goat because he falls for the climate deal (as well as for Obama and Kerry). That is a big, big deal.

Can we be done?

Oh, come on. As long as we have our hip boots and surgical masks on:

Hat’s off, because this keeps alive the hope of capping the earth’s warming to 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 Fahrenheit, above the level that existed at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution — the rough redline scientists have drawn beyond which “global weirding” will set in and the weather will most likely get really weird and unstable.

No, BTL, not yet. Hold it in, let him finish.

With the earth on pace to add two billion more people by 2050, who will all want cars and homes, and with scientists saying the only way to stay below the 2 degrees C redline is to phase out all fossil fuels by roughly the same date, there is only one force big enough to do that — to take on Mother Nature at scale — and that’s Father Greed, a.k.a., the market.

What will make this deal epochal is if the U.S. and China now lead the world in imposing a price on carbon, because only that will take to scale the already significant technology breakthroughs that have happened with wind, solar, batteries, energy efficiency and nuclear power.

So, not only is Friedman saluting the minds and character of Obama, Kerry, batteries, the UN, so-called “scientists” and “many leaders”, but he’s putting his faith in China. And at the same time, the market.

This kind of market:

[L]everaging the Paris consensus to get a price on carbon in the big emitting countries is the “Holy Grail,” the thing that tips everything.

If goverments taxed carbon up the wazoo, wind power would be competitive. That’s some market. And that’s some kind of stupid.

If you can build wind turbines that don’t chop up birds (or solar fields that don’t fry them), or cause people physical and psychological problem from their low-frequency sounds; wind farms that don’t choke majestic land and sea scapes; batteries that don’t require strip mining for rare elements or need to be recycled ny Hazmat teams; if you can come up with energy efficiency that doesn’t involve lightbulbs laced with more mercury than a slab of yellowfin tuna, and nuclear power plants that aren’t dead before they’re begun, then I might—might—begin to listen to alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Until then, you’re a flat-earther and not worth my time.

PS: Naturally, Friedman is ignorant—le mot juste—or at least mute, about the most important act in Paris recently, one that casts a long, dark shadow over the City of Light, the slaughter of innocent, unarmed citizens by Islamist terrorists. Against that backdrop, “global weirding” are also les mots justes.

Comments (1)


Not that I care about the time slot (as I’m always asleep), but liberals can’t lose enough for my liking:

Number four with an anchor!

Stephen Colbert’s tenure got off to a hot start three months ago, but since then ratings have cooled off for CBS’s “The Late Show.”

The latest ratings released indicate Colbert has dropped to 4th place, behind NBC’s Jimmy Fallon, ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel, and even NBC’s Seth Meyers.

Shockingly, Meyers’s NBC show “Late Night” airs an hour later than Colbert in a less desirable time slot.

Since the former Comedy Central satirist took over for the retiring David Letterman, Colbert’s ratings have dropped almost 45 percent since his debut week.

There were stories a couple of weeks ago that his partisanship had driven away conservative viewers. Then he should be happy with the results. CBS maybe not so much, but you never can tell with the painful stream media.

As I nod off between 10:30 and 11 tonight, I’ll be drifting into sweet dreams of Stephen Colbert hectoring an empty room. Not quite up ther with my Kate Upton volleyball dream, but nothing is.


US Muslims Not Happy About Terrorism

And you won’t be happy with why they’re not happy:

US President Barack Obama’s request to American Muslims that they must help “root out” extremists in their midst received an angry response inside mosques in a part of California where four men were recently arrested for conspiring to aid Islamist militants.

At the West Coast Islamic Society in Anaheim, southern California, where two 24-year-old men arrested in May accused of conspiring to aid Islamic State had worshipped, the message was clear: there is no trust of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the US government.

Imams and workers at mosques also described the arrested Islamic State sympathizers as victims of over-zealous law enforcement, illustrating the difficulty the Obama administration may face in convincing some Muslim leaders to identify and report radicals in their midst to US authorities.

They said they found Obama’s request insulting, with some questioning why the same message is not sent to Christian churches after mass shootings carried out by non-Muslims.

“It is unfair to speak about the Muslim community in this way,” said Moustafa Kamel, the imam of the West Coast Islamic Center. An immigrant from Egypt 13 years ago, Kamel added, “there is a lot of suspicion of the FBI here.”

Oh, for f**k’s sake! No one with half a brain trusts the FBI! That’s not the point. Stop trying to change the subject. Whenever I’m down at the local VFW for the monthly Bloodthistan Militia meetings, I always take note of any loudmouth calling for armed insurrection against the state—usually because it’s me. I’ve even ratted myself out to the authorities, anonymously, for fear of retribution.

The arrests in Anaheim followed the conviction in March of two other southern California men for conspiring to provide material support to terrorists. They had been arrested as they were about to travel to Afghanistan. In April, six Somali Americans were arrested in San Diego and Minneapolis, accused of trying to travel to Syria to join Islamic State.

At the Islamic Institute of Orange County, in Anaheim – a city which has a neighborhood called “Little Arabia” – the mosque’s imam, Mohammed Faqih, chafes at Obama’s request that mosques could do more to root out extremists.

“I didn’t like that,” Faqih said. “In these cases such as San Bernardino, the mosques did not play a role. They are loners who got radicalized at home, in front of the Internet. If we suspect anybody, we call it in straight away to the FBI.”

Then what in Allah’s name is the problem? What’s Arabic for “see something, say something”?

??? ???? ? ????? ????

That didn’t work. Can we get someone in Homeland Security to work on that?

Here’s someone else afraid to face the obvious:

“If you supplant the word ‘Jews’ for ‘Muslims’ in a lot of the rhetoric that we’ve had this morning, I think people would find it sort of cringe-worthy and reminiscent of a really ugly time in our history,” [Ashleigh] Banfield said. “There have been Jewish terrorist attacks. Should we therefore ask no Jews to please apply for a visa?”

The CNN anchor then provided specifics examples: “From a period of 1980 to 1985 there were a reported 18 terror attacks committed in the United States by Jews, 15 of them committed by the Jewish Defense League,” Banfield said. ‘The head of the Jewish Defense league was in jail awaiting trial…accused of trying to bomb a mosque in Culver City, trying to bomb [US Congressman) Darrel Issa’s office, an Arab-American.”

“Are you really saying to me that there’s an international Jewish conspiracy to take over the world?” Lord asked in response.

“There are no Jews coming to [the US] to destroy America,” Lord added.

If it hasn’t occurred to Ashley (get out of here with that “Ashleigh” crap), roughly 120 million Americans—more than a third of the population—have been born since the last “Jewish terrorist” attack. Compared to roughly 66,000 Americans born since the last Muslim terrorist attack. That’s like comparing the populations of Japan or Mexico to that of Haverhill, Massachusetts. Or six days compared to 10,950.

And the JDL killed exactly 7 people, compared to…how many again? Give it a rest, Ash.

Comments (1)

I Blame You

Remember: When you point one finger, there are three fingers pointing back to you.

Our Shared Blame for the Shooting in San Bernardino

Before we explore, let me first announce that I didn’t buy the guns for Mr. and Mrs. Farook; I didn’t notice their odd behavior and dealings (yet said nothing); I didn’t let in a crazed jihadist broad as a mail-order bride; I didn’t hold a party offensive to their beliefs; I didn’t call out Islam for…oh wait, I guess I did.

My guilt affirmed, let’s learn more of our “shared blame”:

One thing easily confused in the finger-pointing about these two latest attacks [Planned Parenthood/San Bernardino] is the difference between guilt and responsibility. Guilt is specific and personal; responsibility often generalized and shared. We did not, at Nuremberg, find the German people guilty of war crimes; we found their generals and the S.S. apparatus guilty. (Although, even there, we probably did not do as good a job as we later might have in distinguishing crimes of aggressive war, arguably widespread among war-makers, from the unique, horrific crimes of civilian massacre on an unimagined scale.) But to talk of German responsibility for the crimes was legitimate and, indeed, essential. The Germans themselves started that conversation, and have, to their credit, carried it on ever since.

“The Germans…to their credit”—The New Yorker’s crack editorial staff didn’t query that unfortunate construction? And is the author seriously equating “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” with Americans?

To draw closer to home, no one thinks that all Americans are guilty of the crimes of My Lai or of the abuses of Abu Ghraib. (Insisting that all Americans are guilty of everything America has done, indeed, was part of the hideous rationale of the 9/11 terrorists.) But, as American citizens, we are, in a broader sense, responsible for those abuses—which is a large part of why so many Americans became determined to end the wars that had brought them about.

Aggie, I’ll take the blame for Abu Ghraib if you cop to My Lai. (Chivalrous, huh?)

Vigilant reflection on even one’s remote responsibility for evil acts is the essence of morality.

[I]t is why one of President Obama’s finest hours and best speeches was at the National Defense University in 2013, when he laboriously and intricately and responsibly laid out the rationale for drone attacks but also recognized the potentially insidious nature of the reasoning, saying that “America’s legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power—or risk abusing it.”

Did you know Obama had a finest hour? I’d be hard pressed to come with a decent fifteen minutes. And of course he had to qualify his rampant use of drones, dummy—he’s spilled more civilian blood than a hundred Farooks.

Only in the masturbatory pages of The New Yorker can a writer hide his point behind such drivel—and with such good reason:

The collective responsibility that all Americans share is the responsibility of allowing too many people to have too many guns; guns of a kind that no civilian ever needs can be bought in this country by almost anyone who wants one.

Was that so hard? Hard to read, absolutely, but hard to write? We are responsible for the jihad in San Bernardino—in which no victim was armed—because there are too many guns in America.

I will allow this is a good time for a debate about gun control (more gun control—we already have a lot) if you allow that the circumstances also demand a debate about Muslim control. (Any Muslim control—we have none.) Deal?

Comments (1)

The Ultimate in Blaming the Victim

I don’t think there’s even a close second:

They were two hate-filled, bigoted municipal employees interacting in one department. Now 13 innocent people are dead in unspeakable carnage.

One man spent his free time writing frightening, NRA-loving, hate-filled screeds on Facebook about the other’s religion.

The other man quietly stewed and brewed his bigotry, collecting the kind of arsenal that the Facebook poster would have envied.

What they didn’t realize is that except for their different religions they were in many ways similar men who even had the same job.

One man, the Muslim, was a loser who had to travel all the way to Pakistan to get himself an email bride. (I refuse to add to their fame by using the killer and his murderous wife’s names.)

That wife radicalized him and fueled his hatred. The FBI is investigating her ties to Al Qaeda and ISIS. Go to the Middle East, meet your new wife, meet some terror leaders, begin your wedded bliss back in the USA.

The other man, the victim, Nicholas Thalasinos, was a radical Born Again Christian/Messianic Jew, who also connected with his future wife online and had traveled across the country to meet her.

No problem giving out his name—as you slander it. I’m sorry he “frightened” you. He made complete sense to me (from the few postings I saw, which blamed Islam for the carnage of 9/11).

[T]he victim is also inaccurately being eulogized as a kind and loving religious man.

Make no mistake, as disgusting and deservedly dead as the hate-filled fanatical Muslim killers were, Thalasinos was also a hate-filled bigot.

Thalasinos was an anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be “Freaking Awesome” if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security. He asked, “IS 1. EVERY POLITICIAN IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR? 2. EVERY POLITICIAN IS A MORON? 3. EVERY POLITICIAN IS RACIST AGAINST JEWS?” He also posted screeds like, “You can stick your Muslim Million Man march up your asses,” and how “Hashem” should blow up Iran.

His Facebook page warns that “Without HEALTHY PREGNANT WOMAN (Democrats) would have NO SOURCE of BABIES to SACRIFICE and SELL!”

We have freedom of speech but even so, a city worker should refrain from such public bigotry.

What did I just write (below) about “but”?!?!? And if you’re going to provide examples of the “hate-filled bigotry” of a terrorist victim, it would be helpful if they were hate-filled or bigoted.

Her name is Stasi, an irony too cruel to make up.

Comments (1)

Where Have You Gone, George W?

A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.


Bush worked hard to sow tolerance for Muslim-Americans, convinced—like President Obama—that respect and openness was an asset in the fight against jihadists. Integrated, assimilated communities don’t give aid to violent extremists. In the week since the Paris attacks, however, his would-be successors—the 2016 Republican presidential field—have jettisoned these efforts. Now, much of the GOP is stirring anti-Muslim sentiment. And perhaps the only person who can stop it—or at least, turn down the heat—is Bush.

Bush couldn’t stop or defuse anti-Muslim prejudice. That was impossible, and just a few weeks after he spoke, a 51-year-old Yemeni-American man was shot to death outside of his store, two days after someone left a note—“We’re going to kill all f–king Arabs”—on his car windshield.

Every time someone opposed to illegal immigration—an American, in other words—cites drunk driving deaths due to illegals, sexual assault due to illegals, petty and violent crime due to illegals, our horror stories are dismissed as “anecdotes”. But our anecdotes have real victims and real criminals. The one cited above was never proved as a hate crime. Indeed, witnesses saw two “youths” flee the scene and drive off with two other “youths”. The supposed note was never turned into the police. Not exactly The Ox-Bow Incident.

If you’re going to try to legislate by anecdote, have proof.

[T]he House of Representatives voted to put new restrictions on refugees, “drastically tightening screening procedures,” despite the incredibly strict scrutiny already placed on refugees to the United States.

If they’re already “incredibly strict”, how can they be further “drastically tightened”?

Democrats are a part of this ugly politics, too. Forty-seven Democrats voted with 242 Republicans to pass the bill, and at least one local Democrat—the mayor of Roanoke, Virginia—has endorsed internment-style policies for Syrian refugees. But driving anti-refugee and anti-Muslim rhetoric are Republican politicians.

President Obama has urged Americans to show tolerance, but Republicans won’t listen.

I’m trying to remember: has the author evinced one scintilla of sympathy for the dead in Paris—or NYC, DC, and Shanksville for that matter? Or is that asking too much?

He’s not very bright, either:

Republicans won’t listen to Obama on this score, but they might heed George W. Bush, who still holds sway with the party.

No. No, he doesn’t. Dick Cheney holds more sway. In large part for calling out Obama’s myriad failures. George Bush is deservedly ignored.

The best refuation of Jamelle Bouie, the author, is the case of the Tsarnaev brothers, Speed Bump and Flash Bang. The entire family unit came over from Kleptocrastan and committed all manner of crimes, from shoplifing to dope dealing to murder of dope dealers (suspected), to use of a weapon of mass destruction (Obama’s crockpot), to the cold-blooded murder of a cop—all while on the public dole. They were afforded every opportunity, given every assistance, yet they declared war on the United States of America. How many people lost life and limb(s) after their “incredibly strict” scrutiny?

Americans have left their security to politically correct leadership for too long. We are tired of being dismissed as haters for finding their efforts wanting. Every death by terrorist hand in this country since 9/11 is a direct indictment—every gravestone an obscene reminder—of Democrat and Republican failure. Paris can happen here. It has, and it will again if we listen to such boobs.

Comments (1)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »