I couldn't help noticing, while walking past Dymocks the other day, that David Hicks has an autobiography. How utterly unsurprising. I must have missed the big release and the signing.
Do I even need to ask whether the masses would consider a Guantanamo detainee credible?
I give you Anti-Jewish Conspiracy Theory number 3,765,481...
behold, the ZIONIST TALKING WITCH PANTS.
(Released detainee) Walid Muhammad Hajj: "The most common method to wear down the brothers was witchcraft... there were, of course, Jews among the [staff of] Guantanamo..."
"we knew that (a fellow detainee) was under a spell. ... he said to me: '...The birds on the barbed wire would talk to me, and tell me to urinate in the milk. When the guards pass by my cell, the sound made by their pants talks to me.'"
Daily Telegraph's Tim Blair: "When Jewish pants talk to me, they usually just pass on a few investment tips and tell me not to buy retail..."
.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
Those aren't cross-hairs...
After the Fort Hood shootings in 2009 , it was almost tragically comical to watch as the media found different ways to avoid mentioning the religion and painfully obvious motivations of the killer.
Let's not jump to conclusions, said everbody from CBS to the US President.
"What could it have been?" they implored to ask. of the man with the Muslim name, Muslim faith, who gave powerpoint presentations on the merits of Islamic Jihad, and who yelled "Allahu Akbar" moments before killing unarmed people. Yes, what indeed, geniuses.
Down here, "our" ABC spend eight minutes reporting the murders, without mentioning the M word once.
That same ABC, in the wake of the recent boat tragedy, so desperately tried to hide the painfully obvious fact that "compassionate" laws such as the scrapping of offshore processing, lured these people to their deaths. Instead, they chose to condemn conservative columnist Andrew Bolt for "politicising the tragedy", barely minutes after the bodies washed ashore. Bolt had, indeed, politicised the tragedy...before it happened. He was concerned, rightly, that people might die.
Then we arrive at the shooting of, among others, Democrat congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona on Saturday.
How warm, still, were the bodies, including that of a 9-year old girl, before the media was awash with guilt-by-association stories, pointing the finger at Sarah Palin and her "crosshairs" map from a year earlier, and lamenting her "incitement" and that of the conservative Tea Party movement? All, by their own admission, without the slightest piece of evidence other than their feelings?
How soon before our ABC ran a web poll asking (preaching) Is America’s right-wing political ‘hate speak’ responsible for the Arizona massacre? Less than two days.
I'm not even going to dignify the bleeding-heart, vacuous, empty and fact-free emotionalism of associating tough political analogy with the actions of a lone, crazed gunman, who in fact held the political views of someone far from conservative.
Do these Democrat town criers and Leftist intelligentsia even bother with the pretense of logic, consistency or balance any more?
But since these commentators insist that any strong disagreement with their ideals is "hate speech" or "creating a climate of hate", I would like to quote the following:
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbours. I want you to talk to them... whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
Sen. Barack Obama, September 18, 2008
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”
Sen. Barack Obama Radnor Middle School in Wayne, PA, June 14, 2008
Oh dear. A gun reference. Were there some shootings immediately after June 2008 which we can blame on Obama?
“A Republican majority in Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat” on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy,”
President Barack Obama, October 6, 2010
So we're agreed. Taking a stand on political issue can be talked about in combat terms.
“We’re gonna punish our enemies* and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”
President Barack Obama to Latinos, October 2010
Now, this one is particularly interesting. He was not talking about state enemies, he was referring to those who would vote against his healthcare reform or immigration policies. In other words, not only do we want to pass our bills, we want to punish those who didn't help. See the problem there, kiddies?
“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
President Barack Obama March 2010
Fair enough. But when Republicans get angry, they must keep it to themselves. Check.
“We talk to these folks… so I know whose *** to kick.“
President Barack Obama June 2010
Ah, nothing like a good purge.
“Punish your enemies”
President Barack Obama October 26, 2010
See above.
"I’m itching for a fight"
President Barack Obama December 7, 2010
“It’s time to fight for it.”
President Barack Obama October 19, 2010
Here's another pearler from a slightly less prominent source:
"That (Republican Rick) Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him...He’s no hero. He’s a damn crook."
Democrat Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski, October 2010
The same Kanjorski now says, in light of the Tucson murders;
"it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation..."
In other words "conservatives should play nice and agree with us, so we'll always be in power". Well, that must be what it means. He can't possibly be condemning strong political rhetoric, surely. That would condemn him.
Democrat campaigners used militant target graphics against Republicans. They targeted images of people, as well as district maps. Democrat activists overtly called for the assassination of George W Bush. Prominent TV commentators on CBS, MSNBC and CNN openly wished for the death of their conservative counterparts. Actors called for the violent rape of Sarah Palin, while unfunny talk shows joked about raping her 14 year old daughter. Violent rhetoric? Uncivilised discourse? The list is endless.
But that's different...right? Of course it is. Because their cause is just. And when your cause is just, you can ignore your own rules. Heck, you don't even have to make sense. You can politicise tragedy, providing your politics belongs in the correct group.
.
Let's not jump to conclusions, said everbody from CBS to the US President.
"What could it have been?" they implored to ask. of the man with the Muslim name, Muslim faith, who gave powerpoint presentations on the merits of Islamic Jihad, and who yelled "Allahu Akbar" moments before killing unarmed people. Yes, what indeed, geniuses.
Down here, "our" ABC spend eight minutes reporting the murders, without mentioning the M word once.
That same ABC, in the wake of the recent boat tragedy, so desperately tried to hide the painfully obvious fact that "compassionate" laws such as the scrapping of offshore processing, lured these people to their deaths. Instead, they chose to condemn conservative columnist Andrew Bolt for "politicising the tragedy", barely minutes after the bodies washed ashore. Bolt had, indeed, politicised the tragedy...before it happened. He was concerned, rightly, that people might die.
Then we arrive at the shooting of, among others, Democrat congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona on Saturday.
How warm, still, were the bodies, including that of a 9-year old girl, before the media was awash with guilt-by-association stories, pointing the finger at Sarah Palin and her "crosshairs" map from a year earlier, and lamenting her "incitement" and that of the conservative Tea Party movement? All, by their own admission, without the slightest piece of evidence other than their feelings?
How soon before our ABC ran a web poll asking (preaching) Is America’s right-wing political ‘hate speak’ responsible for the Arizona massacre? Less than two days.
I'm not even going to dignify the bleeding-heart, vacuous, empty and fact-free emotionalism of associating tough political analogy with the actions of a lone, crazed gunman, who in fact held the political views of someone far from conservative.
Do these Democrat town criers and Leftist intelligentsia even bother with the pretense of logic, consistency or balance any more?
But since these commentators insist that any strong disagreement with their ideals is "hate speech" or "creating a climate of hate", I would like to quote the following:
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbours. I want you to talk to them... whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face."
Sen. Barack Obama, September 18, 2008
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”
Sen. Barack Obama Radnor Middle School in Wayne, PA, June 14, 2008
Oh dear. A gun reference. Were there some shootings immediately after June 2008 which we can blame on Obama?
“A Republican majority in Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat” on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy,”
President Barack Obama, October 6, 2010
So we're agreed. Taking a stand on political issue can be talked about in combat terms.
“We’re gonna punish our enemies* and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”
President Barack Obama to Latinos, October 2010
Now, this one is particularly interesting. He was not talking about state enemies, he was referring to those who would vote against his healthcare reform or immigration policies. In other words, not only do we want to pass our bills, we want to punish those who didn't help. See the problem there, kiddies?
“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
President Barack Obama March 2010
Fair enough. But when Republicans get angry, they must keep it to themselves. Check.
“We talk to these folks… so I know whose *** to kick.“
President Barack Obama June 2010
Ah, nothing like a good purge.
“Punish your enemies”
President Barack Obama October 26, 2010
See above.
"I’m itching for a fight"
President Barack Obama December 7, 2010
“It’s time to fight for it.”
President Barack Obama October 19, 2010
Here's another pearler from a slightly less prominent source:
"That (Republican Rick) Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida. Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him...He’s no hero. He’s a damn crook."
Democrat Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski, October 2010
The same Kanjorski now says, in light of the Tucson murders;
"it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation..."
In other words "conservatives should play nice and agree with us, so we'll always be in power". Well, that must be what it means. He can't possibly be condemning strong political rhetoric, surely. That would condemn him.
Democrat campaigners used militant target graphics against Republicans. They targeted images of people, as well as district maps. Democrat activists overtly called for the assassination of George W Bush. Prominent TV commentators on CBS, MSNBC and CNN openly wished for the death of their conservative counterparts. Actors called for the violent rape of Sarah Palin, while unfunny talk shows joked about raping her 14 year old daughter. Violent rhetoric? Uncivilised discourse? The list is endless.
But that's different...right? Of course it is. Because their cause is just. And when your cause is just, you can ignore your own rules. Heck, you don't even have to make sense. You can politicise tragedy, providing your politics belongs in the correct group.
.
Top Gear Does Jesus
Ah, the bittersweet aroma that is "freedom of speech".
As I was attempting to grow up, I would generally fall into lockstep with the Christian outrage generated by the entertainment industry's increasing tendency to slag off at Christianity, Jesus, us, and our faith in general. More recently, however, I have learned that while we must speak up for the truth, we must also accept that we live in a free society. This means people are free to be irresponsible. A symptom of this is that people will bash easy targets to make themselves famous. Targets like Jesus.
Okay, lets get one thing out of the way for any secular readers unfortunate enough to stumble across this blog. So you don't believe that a) He existed b) He was the Son of God or c) He rose from the dead? No probs. It's a free country. In fact, that would qualify you to be a Uniting Church Minister.
But one would have to assume from a pragmatic review of the evidence that Jesus/ Yeshua/ Issa was a peaceful man whose life was extremely constructive, and inspirational to countless millions. Yet when it comes to scoring cheap laughs or publicity from religious icons, the entertainment elites deride, ridicule, mock, scorn and put down this man, and this man only, with His followers next in line.
This man. Not the "Prophet" of Islam, no. Which is strange, because it's not as if Mohammed didn't give the elites enough comedy material. What with, among other things, him divinely claiming to know where the sun sets (in muddy pools, apparently) and claiming to be virtuous while fiddling with nine-year-old girls. The man whose name is used as a fashionable expletive did nothing as ridiculous. Not even close.
No, and we all know why this man, and not the other. I will spell it out in meticulous detail:
Because the entertainment industry are, collectively, a bunch of cowards. I'm generalising, of course, for the sake of brevity. Not all of them are cowards, just most of them.
Well, no. All of them.
For me, watching TV these days constitutes little more than adding to The List of yet another hitherto-admired comedian, writer, author, entertainer or production who/ which has sold their creative talent by taking cheap, easy shots at targets which don't fight back. All to soak up the adulation of The Crowd, who will laugh and fawn at pretty much whatever they are told to. Comedians like Kitty Flanagan, for example. Such a shame. I loved her in The Sketch Show.
Then, the very same elites apologise for, and even defend, the most unbelievable and dangerous belief system in the world. Because they are petrified of it. They are shaking in their narcissistic little boots.
Let 'em, I say.
You see, when they're done creating the illusion of their own brilliance and fame (and believing it), these elites then attempt to create the impression that by being cowards, they are actually being brave. They will attempt to tell you that by attacking "religious icons" (i.e. Jesus), they face the wrath of those "Christian fundamentalists".
Those Christian what now...? Is this a relative term?
Let's have a look: Recently my beloved Top Gear travelled through the Middle East and ended up at Bethlehem, where they did a parody of the Christmas story. It included a manger, not with a baby Jesus, but a baby Stig.
Personally...? Well, I don't feel offended. Perhaps it's because I don't think Jesus of Nazareth was born in an animal stall, so I only see a parody of Roman/Pagan-influenced human traditions. Or perhaps it's because I've learned to stop being offended, because it's my choice. Either or both.
But now, see the headlines: "Top Gear... sparks anger from (Christian) viewers ", and Top Gear...incurs wrath of Christians...
The story behind the headline? That hordes of angry Christians (two of them, to be precise) have taken to (wait for it...) writing on internet forums to voice their outrage! Not bishops, military leaders, politicians, people of influence baying for blood and igniting the fervour of a willing army of activists...but two people, writing on their computers, at home..
Internet forums!
Two!
Writing!
Using words!
Breaking News!!
Is everybody okay??
When the same entertainers wore burkas, of course, Muslims were insulted, and their reactions were (and I wager will continue to be) a little more...um...tangible. Yes- the fact that Top Gear reminded us of the existence of this insulting piece of barbaric clothing...well, that's insulting to Muslims, you understand.
Kudos to Top Gear for being consistent. They have stayed off The List for one more episode. Which is good, because I'm running out of things to watch on TV.
Now, I won't detail the countless other incidents of violent, deadly Muslim outrage to the most innocuous, insignificant infidel references to their faith. Nor will I mention the more-than 16,500 deadly terror attacks (and counting) in the name of Islam since 2001.
No, I won't mention them, and neither will the people on your telly.
Yes Virginia, the bittersweet aroma of free speech; they are free to bash Jesus and cower from Mohammed, and we are free to call them what they are- cowards. Not out of spite, but out of pity. You see, those who bash the things which mean no harm, and cower from the things which threaten, soon become insignificant and irrelevant. Best to steer clear of them.
Next time they kick Jesus (probably in around five seconds from now) you can protest, write letters, and be offended if you like, but I think it's a waste of time. Because tomorrow, they will still be cowards. Best to focus your attention on those brave enough to listen to truth.
Such a furor! Letters were written, I tell you...!.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
