So the Muslim Brotherhood is controlling Egypt (their reward for murdering Anwar Sadat) and expanding their reach throughout the Middle East. Meanwhile in the Philippines, Islamic terrorism in the service of jihad and a world-wide caliphate is rewarded as the Philippine government, with the blessings of the United States government, surrenders. Of course, we, the unenlightened masses, are supposed to see this in a positive light, as a step toward peace.
ZAMBOANGA CITY (Mindanao Examiner / Oct. 7, 2012) – The United States on Sunday praised the framework of a peace agreement between the Philippine government and Moro Islamic Liberation Front rebels and vowed to continue supporting the Mindanao peace process.
“We welcome the announcement by the Government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front that the two sides finalized a framework peace agreement. While much work remains, successful implementation of this agreement would improve security, stability, and development for the people of Mindanao,” said Ambassador Harry Thomas, Jr. in a statement sent to the regional newspaper Mindanao Examiner.
He said the Washington has long supported peace and stability in Mindanao.
“We will continue to look for ways to support the people of Mindanao as they accelerate broad-based and inclusive growth. We fully support the ongoing peace process and hope the parties can continue to avoid violence as they work toward a final resolution that will last for generations and benefit all the people of the Philippines,” Thomas said.
Thomas statement came after President Benigno Aquino announced the establishment of the Bangsamoro autonomous region that would expand the current Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao to include the municipalities of Baloi, Munai, Nunungan, Pantar, Tagoloan and Tangkal in Lanao del Norte province and all villages in the municipalities of Kabacan, Carmen, Aleosan, Pigkawayan, Pikit, and Midsayap that voted for inclusion in the ARMM during the 2001 plebiscite. And also the cities of Cotabato in Maguindanao province and Isabela in Basilan province. (Mindanao Examiner)
Sure, surrender and appeasement, that's the ticket. It always works against Islamic jihad. Well, that is, it works for Islamic jihad. We know that now that they were handed one piece of the Philippines, they will immediately begin a terrorist war to get more - in defense of Islam, and as always, and - you'd better repeat this over and over until it sticks in your unenlightened brain - in the interests of peace. Or as the article says, the "ongoing peace process."
I wonder how many "ongoing peace processes" we'll have over the next few years as other governments give up their own fights against their Islamic insurgencies. And how long, how many generations, will the "ongoing peace process" last in the Philippines as the jihadists continue their fight, always blaming the other side for the violence that is sure to continue because that is the business of Islam?
Mobs in Egypt and Libya attack our embassies over a movie denigrating Mohammed. In the Libyan attack an American ambassador is murdered. Barack Obama, president of the United States had this to say:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing
efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of
Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.
Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who
serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy.
Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We
firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of
free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
That's what I wrote this morning. All through the day more information has been shared. Obama and Romney have both made statements. Romney has been roundly condemned by the mainstream media as they continue their eight-year long school girl crush on Obama. Obama, of course, will always get what he wants from them and knows full well he will never have to call them in the morning. They will always worship him, grovel at his feet, and unashamedly lick the sole of his boot.
No matter how Obama's worshipers wish it were otherwise, Romney is right. Obama offers the same unrequited love to Islam in its worst form that the MSM offers him. And that is the book he licks.
Barry Rubin has an excellent analysis of this sorry situation as Obama continues to embarrass our country and offer better men than himself as human sacrifices to . . . himself and to Islam.
Rather than expose the phony excuse for the demonstration and condemn the Egyptian government’s behavior, the U.S. government groveled. It issued statements in English apologizing for the fact that someone had exercised his right of free speech within its country. The tweets it sent out in Arabic were even worse, pitiful pleas of the we-are-on-your-side-against-this-terrible-Islamophobia variety. And will Egypt’s failure to protect the embassy — because it is on the side of America’s enemies — have any effect on the Obama administration’s helping the Egyptian government get two German submarines (against Israel’s efforts), taking $1 billion off Egypt’s debt, and having a nice meeting with the visiting Egyptian president (while refusing to meet Israel’s prime minister, this supposedly super-pro-Israel president)? You know the answer.
This is a policy of institutionalized cowardice unprecedented in U.S. history.
Read the whole thing. Later on he says:
After meeting Egypt’s new president, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said, “I was convinced that President Mursi is his own man,” adding that the new president is committed to democratic reforms and to representing all Egyptians.
It kind of reminds me of when Bush looked into Putin's eyes,
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.
"I was able to get a sense of his soul.
"He's a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship," Mr Bush said.
If it's true that we get the politicians we deserve, we are in for the roughest ride this country has ever seen.
Allen West not backing down from calling Dems "communists"
I wish Allen West was my congressman. Of course, Michigan is such a
blue state these days, both politically and having the economic blues,
he wouldn't stand a chance. And that honesty thing he's got going,
forget it. Kwame Kilpatrick's soothing lies are the ticket here. To make it in Michigan, you need at least one foot in the gutter.
If he ever runs for national office though, he will have my support.
I almost did it this morning, but just as last time when it almost happened, I got up and walked away from the computer. One of my liberal Facebook friends had made another political post. Many of my friends are liberals, and one of my self-imposed rules is to not get into political arguments on Facebook. The only time I break that rule is over Israel. Don't mess with me on Israel. I have spent time on newspaper and magazine comment pages arguing with dopes and hatemongers that I've never met about Israel. I don't always do it, sometimes the comment pages are such cesspools of open Jew-hatred that it's not worth the effort to wade in.
There are Facebook friends who use Facebook as their soapbox for their cause. That's fine. Many of us have a cause. You are welcome to your cause. But when you have over 20 posts per day on your cause, perhaps you should join a group or seek professional help. These are middle-aged adults who should have something better to do with their day. Besides, most of us probably got it within the first five posts. Are you really that dedicated to animal rights that you have to post every petition, and every abuse and rescue story, and every inspirational animal message that you find?
Although I mostly avoid politics, sometimes I will throw up something related to Israel or the occasional Milton Friedman video. If I have a need to expound on a topic in a stupid political rant, I have this blog. Everyone in the world is free to ignore it, and most of humanity is taking advantage of that right.
My kids explained to me how to delete these posts from my daily feed, and I might start deleting a few people. Of course we will still be close pals and true Facebook friends, but I won't have to scroll through multiple posts on "Romney is an idiot", or "you're stupid because you're not an atheist, only an idiot would believe in God", or "Capitalism is the root of all evil and all inequality because we should all be equal." But then, the reason I post Friedman is just to get the goats of the ranters. Mostly, my friends ignore those posts. I don't post very often, but when I do, I hope it's something clever and entertaining. It's "social" media, right? So I try to be social.
I don't post during dinner on the rare occasions when my wife and I are out on a date. I watch other people take photos of their dinner with their phones, and I know what they're doing. I have friends who do that regularly. While not as obnoxious as the political causes, it seems rude to ignore you spouse to do a Facebook post no matter how witty and clever you think you're being. Or maybe I'm too old-fashioned. If the food is really that special, or if I want to boast about the swell joint I took my wife to, then I will talk about it the next day.
But mostly, I'm not going to get drawn into a political argument. If the other person is as obsessive as I am, it could go on for days and waste countless hours. There are other, better ways to waste my time . . . like I said previously - by ranting on my blog.
We finally had that yard sale last week, the one we'd been threatening to have for the past two years. As we were clearing off the pool table and lugging all the junk upstairs my wife and I were both struck by how much crap we've accumulated without even trying. I even went through my books and tossed a few dozen outside to be sold.
At that moment, when everything in the house became possible yard sale fodder, I began asking myself if I really need all of these books, many of which I read years ago and have been collecting dust ever since. Some of them I bought in high school and have been moving around with me for years. Chances are I'll never read them again, some of them I'll never even open again. They'd survived past yard sales because they're books that I enjoyed reading at some point, and who knows? I might decide to read them again. But they're still stuff. And when you're looking at all of that stuff on piles on tables, and under tables, and sitting on boxes next to tables, it all becomes junk that isn't ever going back into the house.
On the other hand, they're books.
So yes, there are still shelves full of books in the house. And there are still boxes full of books in the basement. Those books belong for the most part to my kids, so in theory, one day they will be taken away. Some of them are mine though, and they're still in the basement.
Many of them are beautiful children's books that are just too good to dump. Some of them are signed by the authors and/or illustrators. Some of them are remains of my mother's children's book collection, most of which was donated to a local library when she died.
Before she died I always told myself that whichever books my siblings didn't want, I would pack up and bring home. After she died I started asking myself where I was going to put all those books. So I swiped a few of the good ones, first edition Caldecott winners, signed, or stuff I just liked. I left others with my father, and the rest are now being shared (I hope) with local children.
I don't think we sold a single book at our sale. I see books at other yard sales, usually their trashy best sellers, diet books, or other things I'm not interested in. There are almost always kid's books. We had kid books and diet books, but I thought the rest of the books, since they weren't trashy best sellers, would sell. I forgot that most people don't think like me. I took the kid books to school, and they will be donated when school starts in September. Our librarian will be so happy with the extra work these books will make for her, I'd better bring her a present.
We also had clothes, bikes, games, and miscellaneous items. The bikes went quickly. There is a guy, whose house we pass all the time who buys and sells used bikes. They're out on his lawn every weekend.
We got rid of a bunch of other junk, but there was still a lot left at the end.
I'd advertised the sale on Craigslist. From that ad, I got an email from Goodwill. I called them Sunday night. They came on Monday and took away all of the leftovers. I appreciate that kind of service.
As I was looking at the Goodwill receipt it suddenly hit me that it pays more to donate your junk because the tax write off is much higher than the pittance you get from people looking for cheap stuff.
On the other hand, neighbors come over to visit. You meet new people. And I was able to get a lot of reading done.
It is now possible to walk in the basement. When I look around the house though, I still see lots of stuff that I'm responsible for. And there is still stuff that I want, mostly music and book stuff. How do I balance wanting my stuff with the knowledge that most of is is just "stuff", and since it's mine, I have to take care of it, keep it clean, make sure it stays usable and all that? How do I keep from coveting more books and music?
Since the world now revolves those eternal refugees, the Palestinians, we must know about their situation in Syria. While reading the article though, I came across some interesting facts. They aren't facts that are normally reported on since they can't be used to discredit Israel. For example,
While not citizens, Palestinians in Syria have greater rights than their brethren in other Arab countries. They can hold government jobs, attend state universities for free and serve in the military. Assad's regime has long billed itself as a champion of the Palestinian cause.
So in other Arab countries, Palestinians can't hold government jobs? They can't attend state universities for free or serve in the military? Let's find out.
They are not allowed to own property, and even need a special permit to leave their refugee camps. Unlike other foreigners in Lebanon, they are denied access to the Lebanese healthcare system. The Lebanese government refused to grant them permission to own land. The number of restrictions has been mounting since 1990. However, in 2010 the government of Lebanon removed work restrictions from Palestinians, enabling them to apply for work permits and work in the private sector.
What a relief, at least in Lebanon, things are improving. Palestinians can apply for private sector work permits, but how often are they granted? And if one gets a work permit, does this mean they get the corresponding permit to leave the refugee camp? Am I allowed to ask these questions? Did these changes come about because of the actions of human rights groups and pro-Palestinian organizations. If so, they must have worked a lot more quietly than those groups who focus all of their wrath on Israel.
We don't hear anything about it, so things are probably better in Jordan, right?
Palestinian scholars and political activists including Samer Libdeh and Mudar Zahran have described the political system of Jordan as anti-Palestinian apartheid. According to Libdeh, the royal policy of "ethnic cohesion" amounts to discrimination against the Palestinians, who comprise the majority of Jordanian subjects.
What? I'm outraged! Apartheid outside of the Zionist Entity? There must be plans afoot somewhere to boycott companies who do business with the Jordanian apartheid regime that is oppressing the Palestinians . . . somewhere.
Students for Justice in Palestine, where are you? Meanwhile in Israel, Arabs who didn't flee, are citizens of Israel with full rights, They're not "refugees". They don't live in "camps." They aren't denied access to jobs. Not that these minor details matter to people whose food and drink is hatred of Israel and of Jews.
"On the individual level, there's no love for the regime or its tools of oppression, and no one thinks that it will liberate Palestine for us," said a Palestinian refugee expert in Lebanon who visited Syria this month.
Liberate Palestine? Their friends and neighbors are being murdered in the streets in Syria. They've been denied basic human rights by their "supporters" for generations, and their solution is the same self-defeating tactic that created their stateless limbo. No matter what happens they refuse to look past the hatred, which seems to be the only thing they have that gives their lives meaning. Rather than find something positive, there is always "the struggle."
He dismissed the idea that Assad's regime has been a leader in the Palestinian struggle, pointing out that Syria's border with the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights has been largely quiet since 1974.
In fact, he said he hoped a regime change would help the Palestinians achieve their ultimate goal: the return to their ancestral villages in what is now Israel.
"We have to work together with the free people to liberate Syria, then we'll go to the Golan and liberate Palestine," he said. "We'll work hand in hand."
With all this talk of liberation, what exactly do they mean? Outside of the destruction of Israel and the murdering of more Jews, what is this "liberation" they speak of? So far, liberation looks like trading a corrupt dictator for the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law. It's still evolving in most of the Arab nations who are making that trade, but we only need to look to Iran to see how that liberation worked. The Iranians are not exactly dancing in the streets.
So the question remains, when Palestinians are living under real apartheid conditions in Arab/Muslim countries, why is Israel the one accused of Apartheid?
Vasily Grossman had the answer in his novel, Life and Fate. He devotes a chapter to anti-Semitism. In it, Grossman says,
Anti-Semitism is always a means rather than an end; it is a measure of the contradictions yet to be resolved. It is a mirror for the failings of individuals, social structures and State systems. Tell me what you accuse the Jews of - I'll tell you what you're guilty of.
There is more, and if I ever feel ambitious enough, I will reprint the whole chapter. It's part two, chapter 31, and I think Grossman captures the essence of anti-Semitism and of the anti-Semite. Of course, that kind of thinking will never make into the media. It's not their kind of thinking. We're not supposed to use terms like "anti-Semitism" to describe anyone, any organization, any culture, or any country; especially if it's true. Look what happened at Yale when the Yale Anti-Semitism Institute dared tell the truth about Islamic anti-Semitism.
For now the media will dutifully report enough of the facts to make you think you know what's going on, and so that you read it in the correct frame of mind; that is, it's all Israel's fault.
I've been reading a huge book of George Orwell's essays. Besides being a great writer and thinker, he was a pretty good political analyst. He wasn't always right in his predictions, and as of 1943, where I am in the book, he's still a committed socialist, which colored both his political and literary analysis. Many of his essays are essential reading, but I just finished one called, "No, Not One", so that's the one I'm currently fixated on. It's actually a book review, but he uses the review as an attack on pacifism. He also regularly savages the Left and communists, which makes me wonder how he still could have been such a fan of a utopian worldwide socialism, especially since in another essay, he trashes utopias and utopian schemes.
But, getting back to his attack on pacifism,
The notion that you can somehow defeat violence by submitting to it is simply a flight from fact. As I have said, it is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality. But why should they want to make this flight, in any case? Because, rightly hating violence, they do not wish to recognize that it is integral to modern society and that their own fine feelings and noble attitudes are all the fruit of injustice backed up by force. They do not want to learn where their incomes come from. Underneath this lies the hard fact, so difficult for many people to face, that individual salvation is not possible, that the choice before human beings is not, as a rule, between good and evil but between two evils. You can let the Nazis rule the world; that is evil; or you can overthrow them by war, which is also evil. There is no other choice before you, and whichever you choose you will not come out with clean hands. It seems to me that the text for our times is not “Woe to him through whom the evil cometh” but the one from which I took the title of this article, “There is not one that is righteous, no, not one”. We have all touched pitch, we are all perishing by the sword. We do not have the chance, in a time like this, to say “Tomorrow we can all start being good”. That is moonshine. We only have the chance of choosing the lesser evil and of working for the establishment of a new kind of society in which common decency will again be possible. There is no such thing as neutrality in this war.
How does this relate to today's clash of civilizations? Where the Nazis left off, Islam stepped in. And yes, I know that we're not supposed to accuse others that we disagree with of being Nazis, but if the Jew-hatred, and quest for world domination, and belief that you are the master race deserving and destined to rule over all others, and demands that the rest of the world bow to your constant demands of "sensitivity" as you rationalize the subjugation of your own women and all those who don't believe as you do shoe fits, then wear it.
But were not supposed to look at Islam that way. We're supposed to reach out to the Taliban, Al-Queda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and all of the other terrorist organizations and their offshoots so that they will want to live in peace with us. We're not supposed to point out that that tactic hasn't worked since the beginning of Islam, nor has it ever worked against any other totalitarian ideology. Tyrants and other power mongers welcome pacifists on the other side of course, as they are useful tools.
Just as Orwell had them pegged in 1943, he still has the pacifists pegged today.
When I wrote my previous post, I was not aware or had forgotten about other destructive endeavors by Muslims against other cultures. Daniel Pipes, who does much more research than I do (which is why I'm lifting his article) has the skinny more Islamic rewrites of history.
The Islamist destruction underway in Timbuktu (including the tomb of Sidi Mahmoudou, d. 955, and the doors of the Sidi Yahya Mosque, ca. 1400) raises a question: What is it about Islam that so often turns its adherents against their own patrimony? Consider some examples:
The doors of the Sidi Yahya Mosque, built ca. 1400, which were only to open at the end of time, smashed apart today by Islamists.
The destruction of Hindu temples in medieval India.
The Mamluks using the Great Sphinx of Egypt as target practice and the Great Pyramid as a quarry.
The Turkish destruction of churches in northern Cyprus since 1974.
The Saudi destruction of antiquities in Mecca since the 1990s,
The Palestinian sacking of the Tomb of Joseph in 2000.
The Taliban destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha in 2001.
Al-Qaeda's bombing of Ghriba synagogue in Tunisia in 2002,
The pillaging of Iraqi museums, libraries, and archives in 2003.
The destruction of an historic Malaysian Hindu temple in 2006.
The destruction of L'Institut d'Égypte in 2011.
In addition, some intentions to destroy antiquities (Khomeini contemplated razing Persepolis, a grand mufti of Egypt banned exhibiting statues) might yet be realized. (On the other hand, the story about Muslims burning the ancient Library of Alexandria appears apocryphal.)
Although these examples include both non-Muslim and Muslim artifacts, motives differ in the two cases: eliminating infidel remnants establishes the superiority of Islam, while eliminating Muslim ones establishes the superiority of Islamism. In both cases, the motive is foul and the results are, historically speaking, tragic. (July 2, 2012)
The links and the pictures didn't copy, but you can see them at the link. The important thing is that this is nothing new. But we'll see how long the mainstream press can continue to ignore it in order to clamp down on possible anti-Islamic feeling amongst us infidels.
I was struck by the following two articles and was also struck that they appeared on the same day. Coincidence? Perhaps. But they do compliment each other, and they should cause everyone reading them to think.
Muslim extremists continued destroying the heritage of the ancient Malian city of Timbuktu on Monday, razing tombs and attacking the gate of a 600-year-old mosque, despite growing international outcry.
The tombs they destroyed (and obviously the mosque) are Islamic, but not the brand of Islam preferred by the terrorists. Even worse,
Scholars held out hope that the Islamists would not also attack the city's 20,000-catalogued manuscripts, some dating as far back as the 12th century. Beyond the tombs, the manuscripts are considered to be the real treasure of the region and library owners have succeeded in spiriting some of the manuscripts out of the city, or else buried them in secure locations.
"We're talking about generations and generations of culture being destroyed," said New York-based Michael Covitt, chairman of the Malian Manuscript Foundation. "It's an outrage for the entire world."
I agree, it is an outrage. Whether or not anybody with the power to do so does anything except protest, remains to be seen. Nothing was done about the Buddahs.
Getting back to the destroyed tombs,
Meeting in St. Petersburg in Russia, UNESCO's World Heritage Committee, last week placed the mausoleums on its list of sites in danger due to earlier attacks by the Islamists, said UNESCO spokesman Rony Amelan.
With that in mind, why did UNESCO side with the Palestinians in granting world heritage status to the Church of the Nativity in the West Bank city of Bethlehem?
UNESCO, the United Nations cultural body, overrode Israeli objections to urgently grant world heritage status to the church worshipped as the birthplace of Jesus.
The 13-6 secret vote in Russia's Saint Petersburg to add the Church of the Nativity and its pilgrimage route to the prestigious list was received with rousing applause and a celebratory fist pump by the Palestinian delegation chief.
So while the UNESCO crew in their St. Petersburg meeting are decrying the Islamists' destruction of historic sites in Mali, they are rewarding the Islamists of Fatah with responsibility over the Church of the Nativity. The important thing, I imagine, is that no matter what happens, they absolutely must stick it to Israel.
So now, thanks to UNESCO, one more historical religious site will be overseen by Islamists. What can possibly go wrong?
"No one can find a safe way out for himself if socety is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result." -- Ludwig von Mises