Andrew Cuomo should be blamed if Zohran Mamdani is elected NYC mayor

Phillip Klein makes some valid points why New York's former governor should be blamed if Muslim mayoral candidate Mamdani is elected, and not Curtis Sliwa:

But if Mamdani wins, the blame should rest with Cuomo.

To start, nothing does more to fuel the rise of somebody proposing radical change from the status quo than a sense that the status quo is broken. No doubt, Mamdani benefited greatly from the fact that Mayor Eric Adams was under federal indictment before being pardoned by President Trump, to whom Adams had cozied up. But he benefited doubly from the fact that when the dust settled, his main challenger ended up being Cuomo.

Cuomo was a failed governor. Not only did his disastrous Covid policies contribute to thousands of nursing home deaths, but then his administration tried to cover up the failure by manipulating the data. And he was forced to resign in disgrace over charges of sexual misconduct. It’s hard to imagine a better avatar for Mamdani’s argument that the existing system is corrupt and broken than Cuomo.

I’m generally reluctant to call anybody a “spoiler” given that elections are ultimately about earning votes. If you’re an older Republican voter who has lived in New York long enough, you probably grew up hating Andrew Cuomo’s father, Mario Cuomo (New Yorkers of a certain age will remember the late talk-radio host Bob Grant’s salute to “the sfaccim”). Andrew Cuomo in 2014 said that conservatives had no place in the state.

That Cuomo's running in the first place is surely peculiar, given his shoddy record. Again, chances are he did so in order to make Mamdani look better by comparison. And it's entirely valid to say Cuomo will be responsible if, in the end, Mamdani stands elected as mayor.

Since we're on the subject, it's decidedly crucial to note one of the groups in New York that's backing Mamdani:

Turning to political developments in New York City, Block addressed concerns over the potential election of Mamdani as mayor. "The Jewish community in New York is very diverse. Some support Mamdani, including Satmar communities that are anti-Zionist," he said. "But overall, the community is troubled by having a mayor who doesn't support Israel and has spoken out against it."

It was reported previously that the Satmar clan warmly welcomed Mamdani at a meeting, and no doubt, plenty of Satmar will vote for him. As horrible as that is, it will make clear a clan whose customs are as prudish as theirs sees nothing wrong with sharia, no matter how much worse it is. If Mamdani's elected due to the Jewish vote, the Satmar will decidedly also have to be blamed, though obviously, considering how twisted they are, some will argue it's a moot point. In any event, chances are we'll awaken to a very sad scenario in the coming week.

Leo Dee undermines cause by saying he's got "no hatred" for terrorists who murdered daughters and wife

The British-Israeli rabbi whose 2 daughters and wife were tragically murdered earlier this month by jihadists around the Jordan Valley has made a very bizarre and undermining statement about the jihadists themselves:

The Israeli-British rabbi whose wife and two daughters were killed this month in a terror shooting on a West Bank road said he has “no hatred” for the people who gunned down his family, in comments aired on Sunday.

Lucy Dee, 48, and her daughters Maia Dee, 20, and Rina Dee, 15, were killed after Palestinian terrorists opened fire at the car they were in as they drove through the northern Jordan Valley on April 7. The daughters were declared dead at the scene, while Lucy was rushed to a hospital in critical condition but died three days later.

The suspects remain on the loose despite promises from officials that they will be found and brought to justice.

“I have no hatred towards the… terrorists,” Leo Dee told Channel 12. “I obviously would like them to be captured and to be treated with full justice that they deserve, but mostly to stop them from doing anything like this ever again.”

“I’ve had some Palestinian friends of mine from neighboring villages who have left messages in tears, because I’ve known them for many years, they’ve known Lucy, they’ve known the girls,” Leo said, explaining how he developed friendships with builders and gardeners whom he employed to work on his home.

“We’ve spent a lot of time together. Because I never got any guards, I don’t have a gun, and I would spend the day working from home while they came, and we would end up chatting, having coffee, talking about their kids, talking about our kids. We trusted them, I trusted them completely with the family. I still do, more so than any other people I know.

“When I spoke to one of my friends recently, he said ‘Look, we love you,'” Dee said, adding that he believed a majority of Palestinians were “decent people.”

Yikes...and I thought it was bad enough when Linor Abargil said she didn't think rapists were evil people. This is a very defeatist thing to say, and notice how Dee's one of a considerable number of people even here in Israel who doesn't seem to have the guts to clearly denounce Islam, if all's been told and indeed he hasn't? This is very sad. Whatever one may think of "palestinians", what does Dee and others like him think of adherents to the Religion of Peace, along with said ideology itself? He's making a terrible mistake, especially after sources like the New York Times downplayed the seriousness of the issue, along with the UK government themselves. The naive approach he's taking, which likely buys into the Islamic concept of taqqiya (deception), makes it difficult to solve these issues.

What Dee should really be doing is condemning any and all dhimmis who minimize the murder of his family, including those who substitute the word "murder" with "killed". That kind of disturbing mentality and MSM mandates are exactly what enable these tragedies to occur. It's absolutely awful these murders occur. But it's also awful when relatives of the murdered women take the lenient positions Dee is. That really hurts the battle against Islamofascism.

37th Israeli government, and Netanyahu's 6th term as premier, is sworn in

Israel's 37th government has been sworn in at the Knesset, and this also marks the beginning of Benjamin Netanyahu's 6th term as prime minister:

Israel's 37th Government was sworn in on Thursday, with Benjamin Netanyahu beginning his sixth term as prime minister.

The swearing-in ceremony began at 11:00 a.m., during which Netanyahu presented his agenda to the Knesset plenum. These include stopping the Iran nuclear program, developing state infrastructure and restoring internal security and governance.

During his address, which was interrupted by members of the opposition, Netanyahu said "Losing elections isn't the end of democracy – it's the essence of democracy. In a democracy, we don't climb the fences of the Capitol, and we don't climb the fences of the Knesset."

Unfortunately, this is something the current leftist opposition in the Knesset no longer seems willing to respect, and likely never did. I guess that's why the sad part is how Yair Lapid, upon leaving office, refused to shake Netanyahu's hand:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the first to take the oath of office. Most of the heads of the opposition parties were present out of respect for the ceremony, but opposition leader Yair Lapid left the plenary hall even before Netanyahu was sworn-in without shaking his hand as is customary.

What really makes this sad is that it hints at where things are headed with the left, which is bad for democratic relations. It could take years to mend the damage Lapid's causing with his ostracizing approach. But, this does demonstrate why it's good he's now out of office. He was causing all the harm he's going to cause, even in the opposition.

So let's hope Netanyahu can handle all the trouble the left's already causing. What if they intent to do everything they can to sabotage his efforts to make peace with Saudi Arabia, for example? Regrettably, that's something they're more than willing to do, if reality says anything about their conduct.

Israel's LGBT activists have no issues with Islam's hostility to their ideology

As explained by Ruthie Blum, following a whole questionable controversy where the left assailed Avi Maoz for wanting to put a stop to LGBT propaganda being pushed in Israeli schools. First, here's what Orit Strook said on Twitter to clarify:

"You can calm down over the much ado about nothing," she tweeted on Sunday. "No one intends to discriminate against LGBT people because of their identity or identification – not in medical care or any other service. LGBTs are human beings who deserve respect and love just like everyone else … It's not at all about the identity of the patient, but about the essence of the treatment."

The idea, she added, is that "a religiously observant doctor will not be forced to provide a medical treatment contrary to halacha [Jewish law], regardless of the identity of the patient. Because in the State of Israel, which was established after 2,000 years of exile, thanks to Jews who gave their lives (who were literally slaughtered, hanged, burned at the stake and tortured to death) for observing the Torah, a believing Jew should not be forced to violate [its laws]."

She went on, "I'm sure a huge majority of the nation agrees with this simple truth and identifies with it, certainly on Hanukkah, the holiday that began with a rebellion against anti-religious coercion."

In conclusion, she suggested wryly that "those who still find it difficult [to accept] do a simple visualization exercise: apply this principle to your [coalition] partners from the Shura Council [the Islamist Ra'am Party]. You'll find that, suddenly, religious and faith principles become somehow easier to swallow."

Her dig at the double standard brings us to the second element of the distortion-hypocrisy couplet that characterizes Lapid's shaky, disparate bloc: the "do as I say, not as I do" practice at which Lahav Hertzanu has demonstrated exemplary skill.

Indeed, the gay parliamentarian denouncing the RZP for "homophobia" is more than tolerant of Ra'am, which labels LGBTQs as "perverts" with an "unnatural lifestyle."

When asked in July 2021 about Ra'am MK Walid Taha's statements to this effect, he replied, "Walid Taha is a member of Knesset who represents a sector. He's legitimate. He's a member of [our] coalition."

Pressed further on Taha's stance, he answered, "I understand it; I can't accept it."

Mere weeks later, he abandoned even that pretense of disapproval. Upon Taha's appointment to the chairmanship of the Knesset Internal Affairs and Environment Committee, the Yesh Atid "progressive" was positively effusive about and toward his Ra'am colleague, lauding him as a "sensitive, caring, committed elected official," and saying, "I'm very happy for your election and very much looking forward to working with you."

A few months after that, Taha attacked Labor MK Ibtisam Marana – also a coalition partner – for her efforts to establish a shelter for Israel's LGBTQ Arab citizens. His method of putting her down was to question whether she was really an Arab, after all.

He proceeded to point out to her that Ra'am follows Islamic law, "which considers same-sex relations to be [among] the most serious crimes in the eyes of Allah, because it is a violation of man's nature and a blatant defiance of Allah himself."

The Koran, he added, "recounts the case of Lot and the heavy punishment that Allah inflicted on the sinners, through their complete destruction with fire and brimstone. [And] the consensus among Muslim scholars [of Sharia] is that the punishment for those who have homosexual relations is execution."

Nary a peep from Lahav Hertzanu, Lapid or the rest of their liberal fellow travelers now carrying on about Strock. If they think that their behavior and bigotry of low expectations do the rainbow flag – or democracy – proud, they've got another thing coming.

So Yesh Atid's openly homosexual MK apparently has no genuine opposition to what Ra'am goes by. Which proves he's only following his lifestyle for the sake of harming the values of a civil society. This should be pointed out repeatedly to all the public who're being constantly told only Maoz and Strook are a problem.

Now, when it comes to healthcare exams, of course LGBT practitioners should be able to see doctors to check if they're suffering from illnesses, and also go to the dentist. But if it's businesses like bakers, they shouldn't be forced to do services for homosexual ideology any more than this Christian baker who was persecuted for years. If LGBT practitioners want services for their ideology, they must prove they can establish their own. If there's one part of being a doctor that religious or otherwise shouldn't have to adhere to, it's the horrific gender reassignment surgeries that're ruining children's lives, along with adults, in the USA and elsewhere now. That's something that should practically be barred from practice, because it risks hurting many people with the awful elements involved. Maybe that's what Strook was referring to? In which case, she'd be making an important case in defense of women and girls. That's something to think about.

Westerners cannot continue to allow Iran or any other Muslim countries to use hijab for oppression

A writer named Ben Cohen makes a case regarding the wrongness of Iran's forcing women to wear hijabs, although he unfortunately also puts in some very questionable claims along the way. The topic stems from the latest protests in Iran, following the murder of a woman who wasn't wearing a hijab:

The immediate trigger for these latest demonstrations was the death in police custody of Mahsa Amini, 22. Amini was arrested in Tehran by the regime's so-called "Morality Police" – uniformed thugs whose job would correctly be understood as engaging in sexual harassment in a western context – for the crime of wearing her hijab, or headscarf, improperly.

Since the major wave of anti-regime protests in 2009, many Iranian women have consciously pushed the envelope on the Islamic Republic's austere, misogynistic dress code, adjusting their hijabs to show strands of hair or applying light makeup to their faces. Since Amini allegedly did something along these lines with her head covering, she was savagely beaten while in police custody, losing consciousness and dying of her injuries on Sept. 16, having spent three days in a coma.

The regime's official explanation is that Amini – by all accounts, a healthy young woman with no pre-existing respiratory or cardiac conditions – died of a heart attack after "suddenly" developing a problem. Few people are buying that, of course, least of all Amini's family. In a heartbreaking interview with the BBC's Persian language service, Amini's grieving father, Amjad, accused the regime of "telling lies," adding, "No matter how much I begged, they wouldn't let me see my daughter."

When Amjad Amini was finally allowed to see Mahsa's lifeless body, it had been covered entirely from neck to toe, although he noticed the bruising on her feet. "I have no idea what they did to her," he wept, with the unique agony of a bereaved parent.

Obviously, the poor woman's murder was concealed as much as possible by the vile mutawas. And then, we get to the part about what's wrong with how the west approaches all this:

So far, hundreds of protestors have been wounded and several killed during the demonstrations that erupted in the wake of Amini's death, but as in the past, the regime's methodical violence against its own citizens hasn't yet quelled their spirit. While the regime's President Ebrahim Raisi – known as the "Butcher of Tehran" for his service to the regime's terrifying post-revolutionary "Death Committees" – was attending the UN General Assembly meeting in New York, during which time he denied the Holocaust in an interview with "60 Minutes" and petulantly canceled an interview with CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour because of her refusal to wear a headscarf, back home protestors were chanting "Death to Raisi" and wishing the same fate on other regime figureheads, such as Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the ailing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his potential successor.

The willingness of the Iranian people to confront the regime has been on display time and again during the last 13 years. Sadly, Western publics, who should really be inspired by such scenes, have tended to look the other way, while our governments have been dutiful about expressing verbal solidarity without doing anything meaningful to help dislodge the ruling mullahs.

There are many reasons for this. On the Left, there is a strong sense of colonial guilt, emanating from the 1953 CIA-backed coup against the nationalist prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh, that leaves Western liberals nervous about criticizing domestic repression, even when the victim is a young woman. On both Left and Right, in recent years there has been a greater acceptance of cultural relativism, with both "woke" and conservative rationalizations readily available, alongside a broader disillusionment with the idea that liberal democracy should be a universal system.

Oh yes, it's offensive when allegedly good people do nothing, which enables bad things to happen. But now, here's that part where he undermines his arguments more, when he says:

The hijab, in particular, has proved perplexing. In America and Europe, where Muslim communities often face racism and discrimination, the hijab has virtually become a civil rights symbol, because many Muslim women freely and proudly wear one despite countless cases of physical assaults upon those who do. But in the hands of the Iranian regime, the hijab is a symbol of repression, something imposed on all women regardless of whether they are Muslims or whether they come from the Zoroastrian, Christian, Jewish, Baha'i or other religious minorities.

I'm afraid this dampens the impact of the op-ed. It obscures how there's women in the west who've experienced violence by Muslims, supposedly for not wearing hijabs, though even if they did, it's a forgone conclusion they'd still face horrific assaults. And to act as though it's perfectly normal for a woman to wear a head covering like that, which obscures much of her identity, is offensive. This is exactly why I cannot accept the Christian concept of a Catholic nun wearing a wimple outfit: it denies her an identity, and makes her out to be a sexual being in every way that has to suppress her God-given physique. I also cannot accept the Haredi/ultra-Orthodox way of dress, as that too is more or less the same problem.

This also ignores that even in the west, there's Muslim families who force their daughters to wear such a reprehensible outfit, and Muslim women who've paid a price for not wearing it. Not to mention that, in countries like Saudi Arabia, there have been terrible incidents where Muslim women were raped and the victims punished, while their rapists got off with nary a slap on the wrist. That Cohen would obscure such issues does a terrible disfavor to women everywhere. And for that, seriously, I think he owes an apology for acting as though nothing's wrong with dressing in such a way, religiously or otherwise, or pretending that in the west, this isn't an issue.

If we accept the principle that it is for Muslim women themselves, and not the state authorities, to decide whether or not they cover their heads, then we cannot fail to be moved by the protests in Iran – and particularly the spectacle of women of all ages tearing off their hijabs and waving them defiantly at armed security forces.

The US government has expressed its support for the protests, although President Joe Biden's address to the UN General Assembly was disappointingly thin on Iran, saluting the "brave women" who had taken to the streets, but saying no more. Last Thursday, the US announced sanctions on the Morality Police, citing the killing of Amini, as well as sanctions targeting specific officials who "oversee organizations that routinely employ violence to suppress peaceful protesters and members of Iranian civil society, political dissidents, women's rights activists, and members of the Iranian Baha'i community," according to a Treasury Department statement.

Well, what can one expect from such a leftist-influenced "administration"? Biden's already proven useless when he and his "administration" allowed the Taliban to overtake Afghanistan again, in the most catastrophic ways possible. And the UN's no improvement. But if Cohen really wants to prove he's a realist, then he won't obscure how even in the west, hijabs can be a very bad influence along with Islamofascism itself, and again, he should apologize for acting as though Muslims in the west can't possibly be sexist/racist/antisemitic themselves, and also for obscuring the danger of jihadism in the west to boot. All that does is water down the seriousness of the issue, and then, we get nowhere as a result.

Moral equivalence at a Memorial Day gathering

On the week of Israel's Memorial Day for both terror victims and fallen soldiers, some corrupt excuses for Israelis held a morally equivalent gathering with Islamists:

When the solemn, piercing siren announcing the advent of Israel’s Memorial Day rang through Beit Jala on Tuesday night, both Palestinians and Israelis gathered in a small house in the Palestinian town stood still in respect.

The assembly was part of the controversial annual joint memorial ceremony held by bereaved Palestinian and Israeli families, organized by the Parents Circle and the left-wing Combatants for Peace group, that calls for reconciliation and peace.

About 1,000 Israelis attended a packed theater in Tel Aviv to watch the ceremony, while several dozen Palestinians and Israelis gathered in Beit Jala, which lies just north of Bethlehem. Organizers said that more than 200,000 watched the ceremony, which was live-streamed online in Arabic, Hebrew and English.

What are the chances these people will ever attend a memorial for September 11, 2001 victims from al Qaeda's attack on the World Trade Center in New York City? Sadly, all signs suggest the answer is close to none. Nor will they ever ask if the Religion of Peace had any responsibility in the murder of Jews, or whether the Muslim families participating in these ceremonies raised any jihadists who'd actually met justice as a result of evil activities. And that's why this "ceremony" is such a disgrace.

Like many of the speakers at the ceremony, Inbar said Israel’s “occupation” of the Palestinians was spurring the cycle of violence between the two peoples.

“It pains me that the sanctification of stones and land, which do not ultimately belong to us, is given precedence over the sanctification of life,” said Inbar. “End the occupation, end the occupation, end the occupation.”

The joint memorial ceremony has been controversial since its inception. Several coalition lawmakers — including Labor’s Ibtisam Mara’ana and Meretz’s Mossi Raz — attended the event, sparking right-wing criticism.

“It is shameful to sit with terrorists. It shows that the left has lost its way, and they don’t have the strength to fight for the just path,” said Religious Zionist party leader Bezalel Smotrich.

Exactly. The left's sold out to evil in the worst ways possible, and it goes without saying they're doing it at the expense of victims of Islamic terrorism in the USA too, right down to how blame-the-victim tactics are employed.

Why far-left reporter Taylor Lorenz needs to be ostracized

Left-wing Wash. Post journalist Taylor Lorenz has quite a history of defaming people on the right she doesn't agree with, which included the daughters of Pamela Geller. Now, the reprehensible Lorenz has gone so far as to doxx another right-winger she despises, based on antisemitic tropes, because this woman was exposing reprehensible leftists on TikTok:

Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz’s hit piece on the popular “Libs of TikTok” Twitter account was not her first foray into doxxing private citizens, but she certainly brought a new twist to the genre when she portrayed the account owner as a “powerful” Orthodox Jew who is “shaping” the media.

[...] Lorenz’s “reporting” is similar to usual corporate media hit pieces on conservatives, with the obvious goal of chilling speech and intimidating anyone who dares to challenge the regime’s narrative, which apparently now includes private citizens. But Lorenz took it a step further by dabbling in the long-held anti-Semitic trope that “Jews control the media.”

The piece is so clearly agenda-driven that it would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous and appalling. At a time when anti-Semitic attacks in the U.S. are at an all-time high, editors at The Washington Post thought it was a good idea to identify a private citizen as an Orthodox Jew, a detail that is entirely irrelevant to the story, then link to said person’s real estate license, including the person’s name, real estate license number, and physical address. The newspaper only removed the link after public pushback.

More on the topic here. Based on Lorenz's past conduct, this isn't entirely surprising she'd go full-fledged antisemitic, seeing as she's already gone after Geller's family, obviously because Lorenz is against people who object to Islamofascism as well. What Lorenz has done is defamatory and hurtful to people trying to put a stop to evils in the world.

The good news is that Lorenz and the Wash. Post's offensive conduct has actually had the opposite effect of what they wanted, and only helped build up more audience for the Libs of TikTok account:

Because she disagrees with Pamela Gellar’s politics, Lorenz outed Gellar’s daughters, who had developed their own popular, non-political Instagram accounts. She also went after KellyAnne Conway’s daughter. And speaking of Gellar, some people have noted that Lorenz seems to have a real issue with Jews. (LOTT's proprietor is Jewish.)

[...] I sincerely hope that LOTT sues both Lorenz and the WaPo (along with the individual editors involved) and that she gets Nick Sandmann rich off them. Lorenz is a trust fund kid and the WaPo is Jeff Bezo’s private political playground, so there are some mighty deep pockets there. The public should also deride, shame, and shun Lorenz and the WaPo.

But here’s the biggest punishment of all, and it’s a natural consequence of WaPo’s doxing hit piece: Although the purpose was to silence LOTT, it dramatically increased her reach. I don’t know how many followers LOTT had before she was doxed, but I noted about 630,000 on Tuesday morning after the numbers had already begun accruing. As of now 11:45 P.M Eastern Time on Tuesday, the account is at 800,000 followers and it’s increasing, as best as I can tell, by around 2,000 new followers every ten minutes.

This is the Streisand effect on steroids, a term that refers to Barbra Streisand’s attempt to suppress a photo of her Malibu property only to draw massive attention to the photo. With LOTT’s expanded audience, the account had better start going back to its core activity, which was showing to the wider world the bizarre, creepy, even dangerous materials leftists freely promote about themselves.

So now, Lorenz's actions have caught up with her, and she's being noticed for having an antisemitic leaning. If the Wash. Post wants to do a favor, they'll stop employing her, and so will the Daily Beast, where she also worked. People like Lorenz have no place in journalism, which is almost an embarrassing career to be in at this point.

Once again, a phony comics fan talks out of both sides of his mouth

I found some more, quite fascinating drivel and double talk coming out of the mouth of one Andrew Smith, who's written the Captain Comics columns for various newspapers in syndication for a quarter century, and isn't doing any better now. Let's first begin with what he said on a topic about Muslim artist Ardian Syaf, who was caught sticking his subtle propaganda into a new X-Men series:

I'd have fired him, whatever the message, even if it's "Hi, mom." Slip a personal message into a newspaper sometime, and see how fast security is at your desk. Publishers have to have zero tolerance for this sort of thing.

Given the content, though, this is extra wrong. It's exclusionary and offensive to X number of readers, and whatever "X" is, it's too high. The correct number of readers who should be offended by your publication is "zero."

Outside of all that, I was amused at Syaf's response that the insertions were messages of "justice" and "love." The inquisition used love as an excuse for forced conversion to Christianity, as have many other religious movements. And one man's "justice" is another man's "oppression," so Syaf could use a little self-examination.

I think Mr. Smith could use a bit of self-examination himself, after discovering the following retweet he posted on his Twitter page, which can be seen in the following screencap:

So he was casting his support for somebody who believes being a Muslim makes them fully qualified to be in the USA? (His Twitter profile said he's also a Black Lives Matter supporter.) Yawn. What else is new? Why should we believe somebody who's basically giving his approval to the Religion of Rape really has a problem with putting quranic verses into the backgrounds of mainstream comic books?

And note to Mr. Smith: if you really recognize it's not the 1950s anymore, then wake up and smell the coffee. We live in a world where bad ideologies, religious or otherwise, has taken a terrible toll upon the world. Who's really missing the numbers here? On his own site, he continued with:

And that is why, if you're the editor, you have to have a zero-tolerance policy.

Since I've been an editor for 30 years, that's really the only viewpoint I know. I can see as a reader that it might be fun, or funny, to allow inside jokes and the like. But as an editor, you just can't let it happen. You can't open that door, even a smidge.

As soon as you let, say, Neal Adams put in something not approved through editorial process, then it becomes a judgment call. Why can't Adrian Syaf put something in, when Neal Adams can? Why, because what Syaf did is "bad," whereas what Adams did was "funny."

Who says? Well, I'll tell you: a judge. Because if you let Adams do it, then Syaf can do it. If you say Syaf can't but a white guy can (with a wink and a chuckle all 'round), then you've got a lawsuit. And it's a valid one that you will probably lose.

If you're a professional, you can't get sucked into the "subjective" game. Either you allow it, or you don't.

And unfortunately, Marvel did, well before Syaf was discovered. They've allowed not just G. Willow Wilson to push a false portrait of Islam, they've also enabled other writers to do the same (Mark Waid wrote a Daredevil story doing this, and also a book called "Champions", which was just as defeatist). When you have a whole company management allowing taqqiya to prevail in terms of writing, it's no wonder the actual abominations could ultimately find their way into books too. So what's this hypocrite's point? Some of the leftists on his site have been upholding the insults to the intellect as well, and Mr. Smith once wrote a fawning review of the Green Lantern issues introducing the Muslim member named Simon Baz. If they didn't have a problem with Islam before, I doubt they actually have one now. The topic will probably be allowed to slip into the past, and when they think the time is right, Mr. Smith and his fellow leftists in the press will go right back to apologia as before.

I don't see any serious change in Mr. Smith's conduct, and if he really understood why the quran is a bad influence, he wouldn't be going miles out of his way to support its advocates.

Newsweek believes America needs a Muslim superheroine

Newsweek just published this laughable piece arguing that the USA needs the Muslim Ms. Marvel as a "hero", claiming she's "best equipped" for the job:

During the first few weeks of the Trump administration, we’ve seen increased pressure on Muslim and immigrant communities in the United States.

In the face of these threats, which Marvel superhero might be best equipped to defend the people, ideals and institutions under attack? Some comic fans and critics are pointing to Kamala Khan, the new Ms. Marvel.

Some very left-wing "fans/critics" are pointing to a character created more as a political statement than a true entertainment vehicle, and when the moonbats who came up with the idea to characterize her as such whitewash the entire Religion of Peace, and call all dissenters liars, is it any wonder the book doesn't hold up?

Khan, the brainchild of comic writer G. Willow Wilson and editor Sana Amanat, is a revamp of the classic Ms. Marvel character (originally named Carol Danvers and created in 1968). First introduced in early 2014, Khan is a Muslim, Pakistani-American teenager who fights crime in Jersey City and occasionally teams up with the Avengers.

Since Donald Trump’s inauguration, fans have created images of Khan tearing up a photo of the president, punching him (evoking a famous 1941 cover of Captain America punching Hitler) and grieving in her room. But the new Ms. Marvel’s significance extends beyond symbolism.

Wow...what kind of "fans" are these exactly? They're actually hurting the character they supposedly root for more than helping. It's not just Trump they're being "tolerant" of. Some way to respect at least half the nation too.

In Kamala Khan, Wilson and Amanat have created a superhero whose patriotism and contributions to Jersey City emerge because of her Muslim heritage, not despite it. She challenges the assumptions many Americans have about Muslims and is a radical departure from how the media tend to depict Muslim-Americans. She shows how Muslim-Americans and immigrants are not forces that threaten communities – as some would argue – but are people who can strengthen and preserve them.

Reading this part made me fall to the floor laughing. By their definition, even Daily KOS and the New York Times, some of the most Islamophilic news sources around, would be depicting Islamists in a negative light. This comes from the European division of Newsweek, but even so, I doubt the writer of this silly propaganda believes a word she's saying. And if she won't quote or acknowledge a single verse in the Koran/Hadith, then I just don't see what her point is. Then, as if more proof were needed the series is already politicized, it's noted that:

...Khan cites her family’s safety and her desire to lead a normal life, while also fearing that “the NSA will wiretap our mosque or something.”

What that's de-facto saying is, it's wrong to keep surveillance on any mosque in real life. And if the character's safety matters, what about that of many other US residents?

The comics paint an accurate portrait of Jersey City. Her brother Aamir is a committed Salafi (a conservative and sometimes controversial branch of Sunni Islam) and member of his university’s Muslim Student Association. Her best friend and occasional love interest, Bruno, works at a corner store and comes from Italian roots. The city’s diversity helps Kamala as she learns to be a more effective superhero. But it also rescues her from being a stand-in for all Muslim-American or Jersey City experiences.

An accurate portrayal? No doubt. They certainly don't paint a respectable one, if they even go so far as to attack Bernie Sanders, confirming the writers don't even like their fellow Democrats. And they're whitewashing Salafism, predictably. Just how is Salafism only sometimes controversial?

As one of 3.3 million Muslim-Americans, Khan flips the script on what Moustafa Bayoumi, author of “This Muslim American Life,” calls a “war on terror culture” that sees Muslim-Americans “not as complex human being[s] but only as purveyor[s] of possible future violence.”

Bayoumi’s book echoes other studies that detail the heightened suspicion and racial profiling Muslim-Americans have faced since 9/11, whether it’s in the workplace or interactions with the police. Each time there’s been a high-profile terrorist attack, these experiences, coupled with hate crimes and speech, intensify. Political rhetoric – like Donald Trump’s proposal to have a Muslim registry or his lie that thousands of Muslims cheered from Jersey City rooftops after the Twin Towers fell – only fans the flames.

It's getting pretty obvious at this point this is more an attack on Trump than a sincere argument. What they're doing here is little more than confusing race and religion/ideology. And look how she refuses to acknowledge Trump did have evidence to back up his accusations there were Muslims celebrating: some NJ police witnessed local Islamists doing so, and here's more information that tells even Dan Rather found proof there were Islamists out there who celebrated the acts of evil on 9-11. The writer goes on to give a description of one of the stories in the Marvel series:

...in one of Ms. Marvel’s most powerful narrative arcs, a planet attacks New York, leading to destruction eerily reminiscent of 9/11. Kamala works to protect Jersey City while realizing that her world has changed – and will change – irrevocably.

Gee, a whole planet? And it's probably not even Ego, the living planet seen in the Fantastic Four back in the early 1980s. But what if is a metaphor for right-wingers, and built on Trutherism? If so, it'll only further compound any concerns the book is more a political rant than anything else.

Kamala Khan is precisely the hero America needs today, but not because of a bat sign in the sky or any single definitive image. She is, above all, committed to the idea that every member of her faith, her generation, and her city has value and that their lives should be respected and protected. She demonstrates that the most heroic action is to face even the most despair-inducing challenges of the world head on while standing up for – and empowering – every vulnerable neighbor, classmate or stranger. She shows us how diverse representation can transform into action and organization that connect whole communities “by something you can’t break.”

Except they did break it. They broke the entertainment value of Marvel, and turned it all into a political rant, much like this article. Say, if they really think a character who adheres to Islam is the "hero" America needs today, how come they don't think the same about say, Joe Mannix, who's Armenian? Or if a Canadian resident counts, how about Alpha Flight's Sasquatch/Walter Langkowski, who's got Polish ancestry? This whole article is nothing more than a selfish bit of twaddle by somebody who's simply not being altruistic, and doesn't consider that comics like these are among the reasons why Trump got elected.

EPA HAS A SUGGESTION FOR A MUSLIMA HEROINE:

Give'em hell, Wafa, and make'em, like it

What a rhinestone

I stumbled over this naive crud posted on the leftist Captain Comics site, by a man who may have fawned over the misogynist Identity Crisis, who's telling the following about Captain Britain and MI-13, which I once spoke about over here:

At the same time, [Paul] Cornell remembered to put a human face on the series. The relationships were as engaging and as varied as the epic invasions. The strongest relationship was the blossoming romance between the Black Night and Dr. Hussain. Hussain was a very naturalistic portrayal of a Muslim immigrant to England. She was cool and charming and it was interesting to meet her family through the eyes of the Black Knight.

On the one hand, his gushy take on the characterization of Hussain is quite annoying as it is gallingly sugarcoated. On the other hand, it does tell that Cornell may have made a big boo-boo in the eyes of some Muslims: a romance between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man! Which is considered taboo under the beliefs of the Koran. Yeah, I'll bet this is a VERY naturalistic meeting with her family alright.

It makes me very sad whenever today's comics are ever considered realistic, science-fantasy or not, and even offends me whenever realism is considered the most absolute importance for escapism. And with the way this beginning to sound, that's why the mere mention of realism is almost starting to leave a bad aftertaste for me.

What some leftists seem to think of Bill Willingham's Fables

I once brought up the subject of Bill Willingham's comics series called Fables and its spinoffs, though when I did, it was mostly to cite how the man has an unfortunate problem (insulting or downright offensive stances on women) that undermines any impact he could make with his pro-Israel stand and criticism of Islam. I thought I'd bring up the series itself again, because I'd found a little string of commentary about Fables on the left-wing Captain Comics site that might offer a little bit more insight to the comics/graphic novels, even though Willingham's done enough that you'd have to take a lot of what he writes with a grain of salt. And, it can also tell just what goes on inside a leftard's mind, which can help if you need to figure out how to deal with them. It begins when one commentor on that post with the weird screenname of "Figserello" says:

Ali Baba's Muslims are presented as duplicitous hypocrites with a nonsensical baroque religion, who are concealing a weapon of mass destruction when we meet them. Everything has its context. I found it extremely distasteful to put something like that out at a time when the neocons were using similar arguments to justify the pounding of Muslim families into mincemeat. Typical fawning approval on BW's part for those who hold the whip hand.

On the one hand, where Willingham earns points is by drawing up an allusion to Saddam's attempts to develop WMDs (if that refers to any recent stories, then we can assume Iran's also been added to the list of allusions in the series). On the other hand, the commentor earns serious demerits for inciting against "neocons" by implying it's "families" they're after in the war against Islamofascism. I guess that means it's okay for him/her if Muslim families adhere to the Koranic belief in honor murders and butcher a daughter who doesn't want to be part of the ummah? Tsk tsk. Another commentor at least had the decency to say:

I do think we should be careful about assuming an author's intent based on a character's actions as I remember when Kurt Busiek was similarly accused of an anti-Muslim bias for introducing Infidel into Astro City

But he dampens his impact by suggesting that something's wrong with being critical of Islam. Are we to assume that if Busiek had intro'd a character with a name like "Apostate" into his book, that he'd be doing wrong there too? Or if he'd intro'd an Armenian cast member? Please.

Let's now go on to what said commentor Figserello began telling in his reviews of the Fables series in paperbacks (and be forewarned: he/she's also fond of George Monbiot, the awful British reporter who inspired the word "moonbat"). On the third page of this thread, Figserello goes on to say:

I've just read the first part of the Arabian Nights (and Days) collection. The whole of the story about the genie in the bottle.

In it we find that those Muslims are untrustworthy duplicitous schemers who have no respect for human rights, have a meaninglessly baroque religion and who connive in hiding weapons of mass destruction when they should be negotiating in good faith and even the best of them are just unthinking dupes.

Whatever sins or failings the peoples of Muslim nations like Iraq and Afghanistan had been guilty of, by the time this story was published they had been hammered halfway back to the stone-age. So I don't really see the point of Willingham's aligning his little tale against them like this. Reading Willingham's story made me think of someone happening on a hit-and-run victim on the road and spitting on them before walking on his merry way.

By the time Willingham wrote this, Blackwater and Haliburton were well on their way to appropriating their billions from the US coffers for the wars in the Middle East, and Rumsfield and Cheney didn't really need Willingham cheering them on from the sidelines and justifying the west's wars in Muslim countries. But he still decided to echo the standard Fox lines in his little entertainment.

So on the one hand, the plus side of Willingham's work is that he's willing to allude to just what Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote, had to say about the Moors in his time - "trust no Moors they're all deceitful." On the other, the poster is sabotaging his/her whole take by blatantly attacking Blackwater and even the company Michael Moore was profiting from. And he/she ignores the elephant in the room - the Religion of Rape itself. He/she then goes on to say about the 8th book Wolves:

As for Operation Israel, I'll just point out the rather one-eyed view of Israel's battle tactics and leave it at that.

Oh, I do beggeth thy pardon? Is that supposed to be an assault on Israel's right to self-defense? What a disgrace this commentor is. Now, what does he/she say about book 10 "The Good Prince":

Other parts of the pattern are the romaticisation of the morality of wolves, Bigby's use of his powers to protect 'state security' to entrap and murder people he doesn't like (Obadiah Crane), Cinderella, the working class 'princess', being the only one who has to prostitute herself to get by, the Animal Farm and democratic movement's 'revolutions' being shown as misguided, and Willingham's unquestioning echoing of the Fox News line regarding the Muslims in the story.

As someone who doesn't take a naive stance on FOX News and Murdoch's associations with al-Waleed bin Talal, this makes me giggle. Because as anyone who's viewed them carefully in the past couple of years knows, it's not like FOX has been literally critical of the Religion of Rape since a year after bin Talal bought a share of NewsCorp. Yes, there are some few times when they're willing to bring on say, Geert Wilders and allow him the right to free speech, but most of the time? I can only say they're hopeless.

Oh well, with that told, let's now turn to the downside of Bill Willingham that may have resurfaced in one of the spinoffs called Fairest. In this review:

The second issue, however, confirmed my poor impression. In this issue, Briar Rose is at least fully awake and on the run with Ali Baba. The scenario has potential and the arguments between the two characters have a nice Moonlighting element to them. However, that characterization is undercut by Jonah the genie’s diatribe about women. Briar had argued that she could keep up with Ali, an argument that is patently false based on their relative fitness. But rather than noting that a pampered princess can’t outrun a trained thief, Jonah launches into a rant about how women aren’t as good as men. As he says, “That’s why marathons give out two awards, one to the real champion and another to the first female finisher.” I was dumbfounded. I thought Billie Jean King had settled this issue in 1973 when she defeated Bobby Riggs. Ali Baba is faster and has more endurance because he’s in good physical shape and Briar Rose is not.

One might defend Fairest by noting that a character makes this statement and not necessarily the writer. However, I’m not sure that defense holds in this case. The genie is generally deferred to as a knowledgeable, almost omniscient character. Plus, Bill Willingham didn’t have to include the diatribe at all. It speaks poorly of him that he chose to write it when it has little to do with either the story or the main characters. Instead, it reads like an anti-feminist statement in a series that’s supposed to appeal to those who are interested in rich female characters.

First, I want to warn that the man who wrote that review once had a positive position on DC Comics' misogynist screed called Identity Crisis, so whether the description of the going-ons in Fairest are accurate, it could be that he's not saying this altruistically, and thus, the review will have to be taken with a grain of salt. But if this synopsis about what the genie's saying is correct, then how does Willingham reconcile that with his pro-Israel stance or even his critical positions on the Religion of Rape? Willingham already came under fire several years ago for participating in the War Games/War Crimes crossover in Batman and writing an issue of Robin in 2004 that saw Stephanie Brown being tortured with a drill by Black Mask, Dr. Leslie Thompkins pegged as killing Stephanie to make a crazy point to Batman about her oppsition to vigilantism, and even turning the Silver Age Atom's ex-wife Jean Loring into a new Eclipso in the Day of Vengeance miniseries, and more specifically, into something even more demonic. Now, he's providing his detractors with more ammo to use against him by writing a "knowledgable" genie making insulting cracks about women's fitness? Good grief. It does undermine the right-wing positions, I'm afraid.

I think the biggest problem with Willingham is surely that he's a loose cannon, and if that's the kind of position he's going to take on women's rights, he's hardly qualified for the kind of political metaphorical commentary Fables is supposed to be about. But neither is the man who wrote that review of his latest Fables spinoff if he's going to approve of Identity Crisis, a miniseries with a misogynist approach to storytelling among other elements that are still tainting much of DC's output to this very day. And Willingham's work at the time did have some connections to Identity Crisis, and even followed up on it, so personally, I'm dumbfounded if say, Brad Meltzer gets a pass but Willingham does not. If that's how the man's going to opine, then his own argument about Willingham's bias falls flat on its face right alongside Willingham's work containing bad biases.

Limpieza Social, Escuadrónas de la Muerte, and You.

When one mentions "social cleansing," the first thing most people assume is "death squads." There's no reason to assume that today's common assumptions are particularly meaningful to those other than today's opinionators. Things change, and so do assumptions from here to there and in between. Social cleansing might to some mean the Nazi genocide against Jews, the murder of Gypsies, the killing of eugenically unwanted others in German territories, e.g. the deaf, and so on. But that's not the end of understanding social cleansing, nor the end of death squads. When I think of these things, I think of you.

http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/2010/08/limpieza-social-escuadronas-de-la.html

Temper of our times

I find that as I get older my private life shrinks from the large thing it was as a younger man: I don't have a mass of close friends, don't have family and social concerns of pressing import, don't involve myself in the personal lives of people I know. My interests are personal, but not so much private. My interests have shifted from privacy to publicity, i.e. from the life of myself and close ones to the lives and doing of the greater, if indistinct, general world of Man.

That, again to clarify, is to mean that were one of my friends harmed, then all my efforts would focus centrally on retribution against anyone who has done them harm, a thing I would take personally. As is, my concerns are more outward, more geared toward my greater community of souls, my nation, my civilization, my world. That, of course, involves many who share little or nothing with me in this life but world air-currents. Still, they concern me. I usually wish them no harm in any personal fashion. Which brings me to those who must be harmed. We might, you and I, call it love.

My nation and its people are strong, and strong beyond even our comprehension. Thus, when reading the piece below, I find myself concerned about the harm that will come due to our misguided strength turned these latter days to deliberate weakness. I fear the wrath of righteous men unleashed upon the weak. See here for a matter of concern to us all:

VOA News last Thursday published a ridiculous article that, unfortunately, reflects all-too-common assumptions: “President Obama Seeks to Bridge Differences with Islam,” by Jerome Socolovsky. It begins:

U.S. President Barack Obama has again postponed his trip to Indonesia because of pressing issues in the U.S. The trip is part of his ongoing effort to reach out to Muslims worldwide. Last year, he gave a speech in Cairo that was considered a landmark in the effort to bridge differences between Islam and the West. Many Muslims believe he should do more [sic]

No one seems to think that Muslims have any responsibility to “bridge differences between Islam and the West.” No, everyone, from Barack Obama to Jerome Socolovsky, and everyone in between, knows that the conflict is all the West’s fault. Note how Jerome Socolovsky frames the conflict:

Frictions between Islam and the West often flare up – like when when a Danish newspaper published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed – or when Muslim girls in Europe went to school wearing veils, or new minarets in Switzerland were banned.

Note that he mentions nothing about, say, “frictions” “flaring up” when Muslims, acting in the name of Islam and jihad, murder thirteen Americans in cold blood at Fort Hood, or murder two American soldiers in Little Rock, Arkansas, or murder one and wound five in a Jewish Community Center in Seattle, or plow into a crowd of students, trying to murder as many as possible, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Etc.

No, none of that makes “frictions” “flare up.” Instead, “frictions” only “flare up” when a Danish newspaper has the temerity to publish cartoons of the “Prophet Mohammed” — as the mainstream media universally designates him these days, as if we’re all Muslims now. Jerome Socolovsky gives no hint that he, or any reasonable person, may think that it’s sheer madness or worse to go around murdering innocent people, or even demanding free speech restrictions, because of a few cartoons. As far as he is concerned, the cartoons — not Islamic jihad mass murders — make “frictions” “flare up.”

Full article here.

Our nation is strong beyond measure or reckoning. We have confused the weak by our pretences of weakness in the world. I personally have done such at times, and the result is that there has to be a reckoning of terrible correction. The Muslim world is the weakest of worlds in our universe of shared living. The Muslim world is a pathetic and sick thing filled to overflowing with ugliness and evil, now on the rampage against our sentimental civility. We kid them with our sentimentality, giving them, the "Shoe-bombers" and the "Panty-bombers" and the Mohammed Cartoon criers, the idea that we are weak and cannot resist them in their staged furies. We fake a weakness we do not have. We pretend we have no strength to fight and no desire to kill. That, dear reader, is a cosmic injustice that will come to shame us. By which I mean:

The Muslim world, emboldened to attack the world of the strong, attacks the strong, They, in their grip of the delusion of our weakness and the displays of our collective and public sentimentalities, assume wrongly that we are weak and cowardly. This is clearly not so. We, like others, are as capable of cruelty and evil as others; and we will, in time, act upon our own worst natures, as befits the common man enraged.

Personally there are few things I love more than pain and blood, fires raging out of control, the breath-taking exhilaration of explosions, the screams of the tortured, and the stillness of the dead. I like it beyond liking: I love it. I love war.

Muslim terror? Muslims are weak and stupid. I could happily live without ever thinking of such garbage people and such garbage cultures. But because we allow them to invade our consciousness on a daily, hourly, moment by moment basis, now, and for years now, I am focussed on them, and nearly them alone. Focus means they will have to suffer for it. If they'd slunk off and died like dogs we wouldn't have bothered with them. As is, they demand our attention, which is our innate evil nature's delight. I love war; and war against Muslims, regardless of their lack of nobility as worthy enemies, is my delight, personally. I don't think so often of my personal life as my personal life, preferring to think instead of my life as a public thing involved in public war.

My private life is shrunk to the smallest. My personal life is given over mostly to the thought of war, and war in this case, against Islam. It's a shameful thing to attack and destroy such worthless and disgusting primitives, but such is the fate given us by our own sentimentalists. Crushing Islam to dust, disgusting as it is for the strong to crush such weaklings, is something I can live with, given the love of war and the lack of a better class of enemy. I could be almost ashamed.

http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/2010/03/temper-of-our-times.html