All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
It appears that comics writer Mark Waid's let his leftist side get the better of him again, as, according to this review of the first Daredevil issue's he's written this year, he's taken up the pathetic role of depicting Muslims as "poor, misunderstood". I want to note though that the review has something bothersome about it that may make it necessary to take it with a grain of salt (also, there's at least 2 misspellings):
Then a review often has issues or complaints. Mine is a minor quibble as I know Waid’s politics are few left and his immediately using a poor Muslim person as being slurred and having racial epithets thrown at him by the police being Matt’s client. I personally have grown tired of this incessant need by many of the far left crowd to constantly never portray a Muslim as a bad guy. Radical Muslims were bad guys, are bad guys, just as home grown terrorists and other groups are bad guys. It is not the actually story line itself or even the idea of portraying that Muslims are like everyone else, most decent, some not; it is the fact I can read where the story is going from the jump. I’m against our involvement in the Middle East and fear we have created half of our own problems; I defend the right to the far left and the left to the far right, so it is not the politics it is the “typical” non-inventive nature of that plot point. A minor quibble but if Waid gets to be a little preachy my complaint is making the book predictable for certain plot points.
Now I'm not sure what the blogger means by his opposition to involvement in the mideast, or whether it's positive or negative, but the point is well made and taken that even now, there's still a problem prevalent with major companies wallowing in dhimmitude and depicting Muslims solely as "misunderstood" or even "victims".
If X-Men: Schism's premise is any suggestion, the mainstream publishers may finally be starting to conceive and allow storylines that do deal with Islamofascism properly. But if Waid's current storyline tells something, it's that we're still going to have to cope with quite a few more apologist storylines for some time.
A Syrian Major-General has deserted Assad’s army along with a group of other officers and joined the rebels.
In an Arabic video clip posted on Youtube on July 29, 2011, the officer, Major-General Riad El As’ad is seen in the company of other officers, announcing the establishment of the “Free Syrian Army whose main goal will be to fight the army of oppression headed by President Bashar Assad”.
As’ad accused the Assad regime of crimes against the Syrian people and called on the officers and soldiers in the Syrian army not to aim their weapons at the people. He further called on them to join the Free Syrian Army.
The major-general warned that the Free Army will eliminate any soldier who acts to harm his own people. The present army commanders do not represent the army, he continued, they are acting for the criminal gang that controls the media and prevents the people from obtaining truthful information on what is happening.
After years of killing, tyranny, and oppression, the kingdom of silence is silent no more.
Air Force Pulls Christian-Themed Ethics Training for Nuclear Missile Officers After Publication of Truthout Report
From Will at The Other News:
The Air Force, in response to an exclusive report published by Truthout earlier this week, has withdrawn materials used in a training session that relied upon passages from the New and Old Testament and a quote from an ex-Nazi SS officer to teach missile officers about the morals and ethics of launching nuclear weapons.
The Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare training "has been taken out of the curriculum and is being reviewed," said David Smith, chief of public affairs of Air Education and Training Command at Randolph Air Force Base in Texas. "The commander reviewed it and decided we needed to have a good hard look at it and make sure it reflected views of modern society."
Smith said the ethics training has been in place for "20-plus years" and the decision to remove it was made on Wednesday after Truthout's report was published. He added that it will now be "given thorough scrutiny" and "folks will be appointed to look at what we have and determine its utility and if they think its useful to continue having an ethics course they will develop a new course."
The course was led by Air Force chaplains and took place during a missile officer's first week in training at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Officers who train to be missileers were required to attend the ethics course, which included a PowerPoint presentation on St. Augustine's "Christian Just War Theory" as well as numerous examples of characters from the New and Old Testament the training materials asserted engaged in warfighting in a "righteous way."
St. Augustine's "Qualifications for Just War," according to the way the Air Force characterized it in slides used in the ethics training, are: "to avenge or to avert evil; to protect the innocent and restore moral social order (just cause)" and "to restore moral order; not expand power, not for pride or revenge (just intent)."One of the PowerPoint slides also contained a passage from the Book of Revelation that claims Jesus Christ, as the "mighty warrior," believed some wars to be just.
At the conclusion of the ethics training session, missile officers were asked to sign a legal document stating they will not hesitate to launch the nuclear-armed Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) "if lawfully ordered to do so by the President of the United States or his lawful successor."
The documents' blatant use of religious imagery and its numerous references to the New and Old Testament would appear to constitute a violation of the First Amendment establishing a wall of separation between church and state.
Two Muslim teenagers have admitted defacing advertising hoardings featuring scantily-clad models and painting a 'burka' over them because they offended their religious views. Mohammed Hasnath and Muhammed Tahir, both 18, used black paint to cover up the picture of a female model on a hoarding advertising Lynx deodorant. The duo proceeded to paint over the faces on several other advertisements around London's East End, claiming it was a 'sin' for them to be uncovered.
'We wanted to do good': Mohammed Tahir and Mohammed Hasnath, both 18, outside Thames Magistrates Court where he was charged with six counts of criminal damage
The youths, who represented themselves, had both denied initial charges of religious aggravated criminal damage. However, they both pleaded guilty to six counts of criminal damage when they appeared at Thames Magistrates Court in east London. Taiwo Akinrowo, prosecuting, told the court: 'On the morning of February 26th this year a member of the public called the police because they had seen three males damaging the bus shelters. 'One of the males was seen to paint on the female angel in the advert for Lynx. On the other side was an advert for the film 'Drive Angry' and this male was seen to paint on the female image next to Nicholas Cage. 'Police were called and began to monitor the males and they saw them walking along Whitechapel Road towards Osborne Street where they then used the paint on the window of the Money Shop on the faces of the females.
Revealing: Tahir and Hasnath defaced a Lynx poster similar to this one which shows model Kelly Brook
'They police officers arrived and the defendants ran away. They were then stopped by police, arrested and interviewed and they gave full and frank admissions as to what they had done. 'They told them that the way the women had been photographed was against their religion and they said it was a sin in Islam for a male to look twice at a woman who is not covered.
Tens of Thousands of Israelis Take to the Streets to Protest Rising Cost of Living Posted on July 31, 2011 at 11:02am by Madeleine Morgenster
Israelis light candles as they sit in front of Israel's government building during a protest against the cost of living in central Tel Aviv, Israel, Monday, July 25, 2011. Over the past two weeks, Israelis have set up tent camps in a handful of cities throughout the country calling attention to the soaring cost of living. (AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)
JERUSALEM (AP) — Tens of thousands of Israelis took to the streets nationwide on Saturday to protest rising housing prices in the largest turnout in a grass-roots movement that began two weeks ago and is demanding steps from the government to ease the burden.
The protests over housing costs have tapped into wider discontent among Israelis over the high cost of living and the growing gaps between rich and poor. Other protests include doctors striking over working conditions and pay, parents demonstrating against expensive child rearing costs and similar outpourings over increasing gas prices.
Thousands thronged the streets of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and other major cities and chanted, “The people demand social justice.” Protesters waved Israeli flags and placards that read: “work 3 jobs but don’t make ends meet,” ”killing ourselves to live“ and ”social gaps are killing us.”
Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said more than 100,000 people protested in 10 cities across the country from Beersheba in the south to Kiryat Shmoneh at the northern tip of the country Saturday night. Police closed major streets for the protesters to march.
The demonstrations began two weeks ago in Tel Aviv, where young activists set up a small tent encampment in a central neighborhood to draw attention to the country’s housing crunch. The protests, inspired in part by unrest in neighboring Arab countries, have continued to gain steam and show no signs of slowing.
“This is a great success; people are marching in the streets and living in the streets for the past two weeks,” Stav Shafir, one of the protest leaders said. “Finally people are choosing to determine how they want to live. We want affordable housing, health, education and welfare.”
The weeks of popular demonstrations are becoming a headache for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with polls showing a sharp drop in his approval ratings and strong support for the protesters. Netanyahu announced a package of reforms meant to lower housing prices last week but it did little to defuse the anger.
In Jerusalem, thousands marched through the city center to the prime minister’s house.
Protesters held up signs reading, “Netanyahu go home.” The protests have brought together people from diverse background and a wide range of political views. Recent demonstrations have included marches against the prices of gasoline, boycotts of expensive cottage cheese that forced manufacturers to lower prices and lengthy strikes by social workers and doctors over pay and working conditions.
The average Israeli salary stands at about $2,500 per month, with key professions like teachers, civil servants and social workers typically earning less than $2,000 a month.
Home prices jumped some 35 percent between December 2007 and August 2010 and rental rates have also risen steadily. Rent on a modest three-bedroom apartment in central Jerusalem can cost more than $1,000 per month and costs even more in Tel Aviv.
A standard, 1,000-square-foot (100-square-meter) apartment can easily top $600,000 in metropolitan centers like Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and $200,000 to $300,000 in second-tier areas.
Protest organizers addressed a crowd of 50,000 people in Tel Aviv.
“We are here today to tell our elected representatives in the clearest manner that the government has a responsibility toward its citizens,” Daphni Leef, one of the leaders said. “Public housing isn’t a dirty word. No more tricks.”
Opposition leader Tzipi Livni said parliament should cancel its summer break to deal with the crisis.
Cabinet secretary Tzvi Hauser tried to defend the government’s policies on Channel 10 TV but was heckled and silenced by questions from a panel of critics. Hauser said the government had inherited the problems from previous governments and was working hard to solve them.
A follow-up to this post by Midnight Rider, from something I will be posting tomorrow at my site:
For a moment, forget the blasphemy issue.
Think about this:
[I]f you post an image intended to distress some...political...group, you too can be sent to jail...
Does that statement apply to political parties? Is it really possible that posting an image offensive to political parties could land someone in jail?
Whatever happened to the tradition of Thomas Nast? In addition to creating images satirizing politics, he created the image of Uncle Sam as well as the Republican Party elephant and the Democratic Party donkey.
Read more about Nast's notable works HERE and his accomplishments HERE, particularly Nast's contribution to the downfall of Boss Tweed, the leader of the corrupt Tammany Hall.
Furthermore, wouldn't Nast's John Chinaman be considered offensive in today's climate of political correctness? See that image below:
Should we now ban the online image of John Chinaman?
With regard to codifying the civil right not to be offended, what about printed words that offend a given group? Should those words, if offensive to a particular group, be forbidden and even prosecutable?
THIS is but one of many examples indicating that being offended is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, the teacher's being offended was a personal and political choice.
If we codify a civil right not to be offended, we will reach the point that everything we say, write, or post has to be weighed against whether or not somebody else might be offended. At that point, communication will cease.
Here are the outlines of a debt-ceiling deal that congressional leaders and the Obama White House are firming up in preparation for a possible announcement as early as Sunday afternoon.
In many respects, the deal will, if approved by all parties, resemble the contours of a short-lived pact negotiated last weekend by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority LeaderHarry Reid, D-Nev. Obama rejected that deal, forcing Congress to wrestle with other inferior legislative options throughout the week.
Among the newest wrinkles, according to informed sources, is an agreement to extend the current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling very briefly to give the legislative process time to work without resorting to emergency, hurry-up measures.
President Obama has said he would only sign a short-term extension (days, not weeks) if it were linked to an extension of borrowing authority that lasts beyond the 2012 election.
According to sources, the Senate would use the military construction appropriations bill, one currently available for action, as the vehicle for the short-term extension. This element of the arrangement, like everything else, is subject to modification. But those close to the negotiations expect Congress to slow things down without jeopardizing the nation’s full faith and credit. A debt extension of days would achieve that goal.
Other component parts of the tentative deal include:
$2.8 trillion in deficit reduction with $1 trillion locked in through discretionary spending caps over 10 years and the remainder determined by a so-called super committee.
The Super Committee must report precise deficit-reduction proposals by Thanksgiving.
The Super Committee would have to propose $1.8 trillion spending cuts to achieve that amount of deficit reduction over 10 years.
If the Super Committee fails, Congress must send a balanced-budget amendment to the states for ratification. If that doesn’t happen, across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect and could touch Medicare and defense spending.
No net new tax revenue would be part of the special committee’s deliberations.
This morning, sunday we seem to be facing a progressive choir singing a single note.
‘The tea party are fascist, dictatorial, hezballoids, dedicated to undoing the founder’s intent and do not have the RIGHT to do what they are doing’
Maureen Dowd, NYT:
The maniacal Tea Party freshmen are trying to burn down the House they were elected to serve in. It turns out they wanted to come inside to get a blueprint of the historic building to sabotage it.
Maria Cardona, CNN:
We have become victims of the Tyranny of 87. ..
The tyranny is coming from the 87 members of Congress from the tea party caucus, whose selfish and irresponsible demands during the debt ceiling negotiations may very well mean either outright default or what could be even worse and too late to avoid — the downgrade of the country’s gold standard AAA credit rating. What is worse, these 87 little tyrants have no clear understanding of the fallout of either scenario.
Nor is that all. The NYT which now moderates for ‘approval’ all comments presents a uniform set like these comment excerpts:
A week ago Friday it became clear that the Republican politicians were not interested in negotiations on the debt ceiling debate and broke off talks with the President
Approximately 78 tea party members (and their supporters in the republican party)were able to take the other congress members, the president and the majority of the people of the nation as hostages for their rigid and impractical ideology
Guess what? We are no longer have a real democracy. Elected representatives should represent the interests of their constituents, the “people” that voted the representative into office.
The tea partyers and their actions are proof that the American Constitution needs fundamental changes to make it a viable instrument of governing, especially in the 21st century where information revolution has empowered a lot of demagogues
First of all, the tea party’s REASON FOR EXISTENCE is the lack of adherence to the constitution by those who make a career out of bossing others about while getting checks from the federal govt, some of whom are doing far better than the rest of us. Perhaps they, in their ability to decide what is best have forgotten a few things?
Second, both parties have PROVEN historically, inarguably, and in fact they cannot manage the budget, the deficit or the debt, and are now afraid to even raise (save for some few brave souls like Ryan, Cantor, and McArthy…who are NOT Tea Party types, btw) the real issues which can SAVE THE REPUBLIC from it’s unsustainable set of promises.
Third, this prattling about the result of a Nov 2010 NATIONAL election mandate of HISTORIC PROPORTIONS cuts both ways. In an election which saw Tea Party like believers elected from South Carolina to Iowa and Kansas and across the nation, and REVERSE a sizable national majority of Democrats in Congress, there is meaning. THAT is the the national will. One day there will be a reversal controlled by ‘progressives’ and 80-100 of them will want to stand by the ideology they expressed whose principles the nation voted for.
The posters at the NYT are of a consonant meme to be sure, and the Times won’t allow any reasoned discussions that point this out. But the national single line coming out of the left today is what is extreme.
The national single line coming out of the left today is what is driving the partisan gap deeper and wider
The national single line coming out of the left today is what is PREVENTING discussion of the real issue, the UNSUSTAINABLE PROMISES MADE BY GOVT
The national single line coming out of the left today is what is PREVENTING discussion of what can help, GROWTH IN THE ECONOMY VIA MORE PEOPLE WORKING AT CHALLENGING, ENGAGING AND HIGH PAYING CAREERS.
We need some deal along the time length of what has been historical, SEVEN MONTHS.
We also need a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. But if that fails, should we blame the 13 states that reject the amendment for being terrorists, extremists, and holding to ransom the future of the nation?
Or should we roll up our sleeves and figure out how we can fit all of our beliefs into an amendment acceptable to enough states to get the amendment added to the Founding Document?
It is clear by how the progressives are framing what they are saying in such lock step monotone that they claim they are MOST interested in the personal welfare of the voters they feel owe them allegiance.
I am not sure that is the same thing as the welfare of the nation.
The unions which looked after the rights of the auto workers once had as their only concern the pay, and benefits (personal welfare) of their members.
I thought you might like to know about this. It looks like the Tennessee legislature is now trying to ax the first amendment, to stop people from hurting other people's feelings. Talk about PC fascism.
According to a person who goes by the youtube user name, Losoyo, Tennessee has just passed a law banning offensive speech over the net that would basically make Everybody Draw Muhammad day, illegal in that state.
This is so clearly unconstitutional its absurd.Yet even if it wasn't unconstitutional, it would be absurd.Free speech is worthless without the right to offend. I hope the supreme court throws this thing out.But in the meantime, it seriously needs to be fought.
I would have had a hard time believing him, except for the fact that he backs his claim up. He also had this link in his video description, to a news article that backs up his story.
Over the last few years, we've seen a troubling trend in various state laws which attempt to come up with ways to outlaw being a jerk online. Many of these are based on politicians and/or the public taking an emotional reaction to something bad happening after some does something online that angered someone else. Of course, while it would be nice if jerks would go away or jerky behavior would cease, that's just not realistic. The real issue is: how can it be constitutional to outlaw being a jerk? In many cases it raises serious First Amendment issues, among other things. The latest to jump into this game is the state of Tennessee, which apparently decided that just throwing people in jail for sharing music subscription passwords wasn't enough: now they want to put people in jail for "causing emotional distress" to others.
The specific law outlaws posting a photo online that causes "emotional distress" to someone and has no "legitimate purpose." While the law does state that there needs to be "malicious intent," it also includes a massive loophole, in that it says that you can still be liable if the person "reasonably should know" that the actions would "frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress." Eugene Volokh notes all sorts of problems with this:
If you’re posting a picture of someone in an embarrassing situation — not at all limited to, say, sexually themed pictures or illegally taken pictures — you’re likely a criminal unless the prosecutor, judge, or jury concludes that you had a “legitimate purpose.”
Likewise, if you post an image intended to distress some religious, political, ethnic, racial, etc. group, you too can be sent to jail if governments decisionmaker thinks your purpose wasn’t “legitimate.” Nothing in the law requires that the picture be of the “victim,” only that it be distressing to the “victim.”
The same is true even if you didn’t intend to distress those people, but reasonably should have known that the material — say, pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group — would “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities.”
And of course the same would apply if a newspaper or TV station posts embarrassing pictures or blasphemous images on its site.
Honestly, any time you have a law where the liability is based on how some other person feels, you've got a pretty serious problem. You can criminalize actions, but making someone a criminal because someone else feels "emotional distress" seems like a huge stretch.
Glenn Beck was heavily criticized for saying that the Norwegian youth camp (the one targeted by the Norway shooter) resembled a "Hitler Youth Camp." Beck may have been a bit too strong in drawing such a parallel, but he was partially right. The purpose of the camp was to indoctrinate young people into leftist doctrines. On the day before the shootings, the youth on the island displayed a large banner saying "Boikott Israel."
The leftist bent of the camp may be why the shooter selected it as a target.
I view Beck's "Hitler Youth" comment in the same like as Ward Churchill's "little Eichmanns" description of the WTC victims. It's reprehensible.
I know the Norwegian Labor Party deserves criticism but now in the same breath as one talks about the Breivik atrocity and certainly not with the inflammatory rhetoric that Beck uses.
I think the Norwegian diplomat's comment about shahid attacks against Jews in Israel not being as bad as Breivik (see Front Page Magazine) exposes his loss of moral high ground. But that doesn't diminish the condemnation of Breivik to any degree. It's an unconditional evil.
I do not mean to draw a moral equivalency between Breivik and the Norwegian Labor Party Youth Camp. No moral equivalence exists. However, let us be clear, teaching children that Israel is an Apartheid State is setting the wheels in motion towards an eventual delegitimization of Israel which is intended to lead to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, and would lead to the purposeful deaths of Jews at the hands of Arab Muslims who have been bred to hate them by virulently anti-Semitic Palestinian and Hiz'b'allah media.
In this sense, I think it is reasonable to compare the Labor Party Youth Camp's specific indoctrination of Israel-hate to the Hitler Youth Camp's teaching of abject Jew-hate. It must be noted that comparison is not the same thing as equivalence. However, by way of comparison, I think we have found two things of the same kind.
Fire away, if you disagree. You guys know me well enough to know, I am more than up for it.
Of course Sen Reid, that reads the other way around as well. Unless there is a compromise or you accept the ALREADY PASSED House Bill you have steered the nation towards disaster (maybe, if no hyperbole has been attached by the admin)
However the president already REJECTED, last weekend, the very compromises between your wants, Reid and republican senators.
As an American, when I hear Obama use the words ‘fair’ and ‘balanced’ I like to thin a second look is required since we all want to be ‘fair’.
But just suppose:
WHAT IF ‘FAIR’ WILL NOT SOLVE THE ECONOMIC PROBLEMS WE HAVE?
I am 62 in Dec. - so this is near.
I cannot help but feel that the UNAVOIDABLE disaster brought about by unsustainable spending will result from Social Security and Medicare payments which are GOING TO DESTROY THE NATION especially as defense spending and R&D must decline, and then there will be neither for ANYONE.
Flat Tax on people and corporations.
Fix Free Trade so that is enforces equal working conditions WHERE PRODUCTS ARE MADE
Raise retirement, and therefore Medicare age.
DO IT NOW.
NOW NOW NOW
The president or leader who can effectively explain this, or programs which TRULY ACHIEVE the equivalent result will be ABRAHAM LINCOLN in 2111 AD.