Day: January 5, 2018

Shred the Veil


In the 2014 book Princess: More Tears to Cry by Jean Sasson, the protagonist, Princess Sultana Al’ Sa’ud of Saudi Arabia, recounts how “to this day there are teenage Saudi boys living in Riyadh who, taught by their fathers and the clerics, consider women to be second-class citizens and cast stones at what they consider to be an offensive sight – an unveiled female face.”

The princess asserts that it is her “sincere wish that the day will come when … an uncovered face will not cause violence in the street.”  She declares that “nothing reveals more to [her] of a young woman’s personality than the will to fight against any injustice against women, and certainly something as personal as the face veil, which is not required by the Islamic faith, as all those who are truly familiar with our holy book will know.”

She relates a tale of a young girl in a poor hamlet in Al-Kharz who aspired to be a doctor.  As she was the last of four daughters, this resulted in her father saying to his wife, “I divorce you” three times (Quran 2:222-286), and the deed was done.  The baby’s mother, who had just given birth, witnessed her now ex-husband grab the newborn baby, shouting that he was going “to bury [her] alive in the desert.”  He wanted to take the “infant into the desert, where he would have scooped sand with his hands until he had created a hole large enough to hold a tiny baby, and then he would have pushed that sand over the baby so that she would have sucked sand rather than air into her lungs until she had died an agonizing death.”  He then “shouted for his three older daughters to line up and wait for his return as he was going to throw those three in the village well.” 

Fortunately, an uncle to the little baby intervened and asked that the father pass the newborn to him; instead, the newborn was “tossed on the dirt floor” while her father left.  Since her father did not insist upon custody of his daughters, the unwanted child had a sliver of a chance at life.  In Saudi Arabia, “if a man claims custody from the first day of a child’s birth, no one will defy the father.”  Had the infant’s father “demanded guardianship, no one would have stood in his way,” and he would have murdered all his daughters.

This family’s ordeal was far from over.  The baby’s grandparents demonstrated intense animosity to their daughter and her children.  Although illiterate, this now single mother instinctively understood that if “females are forced to be ignorant, then the women have no alternative but to live the life of a slave to a man.”  As she recounts the bravery and perseverance of her mother, the grown-up Dr. Meena explains that although she is “the daughter of a woman who could not write her name, she is a doctor who has the training and skills to save lives.”

There are changes afoot in the Arab Middle East, and they will come about because of the tenacious fearlessness of women such as Dr. Meena’s mother. 

In Iran, heroic women, “by risking their lives, have unmasked the faces of those trying to promote burqas and hijabs as supposed ‘symbols of liberation.'”  Yet these shackles  are the very ones the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, and the likes of Linda Sarsour continue to promote.  Western women would do well to speak out against any individual or organization who wishes to impose sharia’s anti-woman regulations, no matter how enticing the speaker sounds.

It is instructive to see what Iranian women wore before the 1979 revolution.  In December 2017, Iranian officials stated that “women will no longer be arrested for not wearing a hijab.”  Instead, women who do not wear the hijab in public “will be forced to attend Islam educational classes.”

Qanta Ahmed, who was raised as an observant Muslim in a British family, strongly supports “the right to ban the veil.”  Wearing of the veil is “what happens when Islamists are tolerated by a [W]estern culture that’s absurdly anxious to avoid offen[s]e.  This strange, unwitting collaboration between liberals and extremists has been going on for years.”  Her medical career took her to Saudi Arabia for two years, where she “was mandated by law to wear the hijab, covering all of [her] hair and neck.”

For … two years, I became intimately acquainted with the cumbersome nature of forced veiling and its impracticality – even seeing it imposed upon my unconscious female patients.  Where the veil is mandatory, a kind of oppression is implemented: an oppression that has absolutely no basis in Islam.

In fact, “rigid interpretations of the veil are a recent invention.”  They are not derived from the Quran, but have become a “form of misogyny which claims a false basis in the divine.”

Instead of fighting alongside these Muslim women, far too many Western feminists join Islamist terrorists.  Not only do they remain mute, but their presence at certain events “actively endorses and legitimizes the rule” of those who wish to keep women oppressed.  How tone-deaf is Federica Mogherini, the high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy, who visited Iran?  In fact, “[w]hen Mogherini smiles in her hijab in Iran, she is delivering a strong blow to women[‘s] rights movements [as they] attempt to remove the compulsion of the obligatory hijab and grant women equal autonomy, education[,] and freedom.  She is empowering suppression.”

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown writes that “[a]s a practi[c]ing (though flawed) Shia Muslim, [she watches] … with apprehension.  So too other Muslims worldwide, the silent many, watch and tremble.”  Alibhai-Brown writes “about Qasim Amin who in 1899 wrote ‘The Liberation of Women.’  He was the John Stuart Mill of the Arab world.”  In the early 1920s, Egyptian women and educated Iranian women began feminist magazines and “campaigned against the veil,” yet these people “have been written out of  history or are dismissed as [W]estern stooges by some contemporary Muslim intellectuals.”  In Morocco and Pakistan in the 1960s, there were those who “rightly saw the veil as a tool and symbol of oppression and subservience.”  For Alibhai-Brown, “the veils represent both religious arrogance and subjugation; they both desexuali[z]e and fervidly sexuali[z]e.”  Hence, “a veiled female … represents an affront to female dignity, autonomy[,] and potential.”

She demands that those who do veil consider women in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and even the West, who are prosecuted, flogged, tortured, and killed for not complying.  In fact, those “who are forced[] cannot speak out.”  How many feminists understand that “sexual violence in Saudi Arabia and Iran is appallingly high, as is body dysmorphia”?  But is this any surprise when an imam in Falls Church, Virginia asserts that painful female genital mutilation (FGM) is a means to “prevent women from being ‘hypersexual'”?

Female abuse is rampant.  Child marriages among migrants from the Middle East, Asia, and Africa are escalating in Denmark, Sweden, and Germany with girls as young as eleven being married off.  Polygamy, while illegal in Europe, is proliferating as many immigrants bring multiple wives and children with them.  Britain’s first female Islamic judge said, “[T]he [British] government cannot … ask Muslims not to have more than one wife.” 

“Disobedient” wives undergo beatings as well as being burned alive all in the name of sharia.  In 2017, an Iranian child bride was beaten by her husband and forced to give up her children.  She fled to Australia.  She revealed that “a person who [decides to convert] in Iran will be deemed an apostate and the punishment is death.”  She explains that she “hated Islam and its regressive laws in Iran … a religion with no value or respect for women.  It recogni[z]es women as only a means of sexual pleasure for men.”

Instead of speaking out against such repression and violence, the fashion world is now turning the Islamic veil into a “global garment.”  Mattel “unveiled” the world’s first hijab-wearing Barbie doll.  Dolce & Gabbana is producing a collection of hijabs and abayas to Muslim customers in the Middle East.  Playboy had a Muslim woman wearing a hijab.  Nike released a performance hijab outfit for athletes.

Why should Western society in any way, shape or form promote any symbol of Islamic tyranny?  Would a Nazi doll have been promoted in the 1940s?  Greed, ignorance, and indifference aptly describe these corporate decisions.

We, who are fortunate to live in the West, are morally obligated to unequivocally state that “instead of embracing these veils, a true feminism should defend the rights and freedoms of all women.”  We should not support anything that endorses the repression of women. 

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

In the 2014 book Princess: More Tears to Cry by Jean Sasson, the protagonist, Princess Sultana Al’ Sa’ud of Saudi Arabia, recounts how “to this day there are teenage Saudi boys living in Riyadh who, taught by their fathers and the clerics, consider women to be second-class citizens and cast stones at what they consider to be an offensive sight – an unveiled female face.”

The princess asserts that it is her “sincere wish that the day will come when … an uncovered face will not cause violence in the street.”  She declares that “nothing reveals more to [her] of a young woman’s personality than the will to fight against any injustice against women, and certainly something as personal as the face veil, which is not required by the Islamic faith, as all those who are truly familiar with our holy book will know.”

She relates a tale of a young girl in a poor hamlet in Al-Kharz who aspired to be a doctor.  As she was the last of four daughters, this resulted in her father saying to his wife, “I divorce you” three times (Quran 2:222-286), and the deed was done.  The baby’s mother, who had just given birth, witnessed her now ex-husband grab the newborn baby, shouting that he was going “to bury [her] alive in the desert.”  He wanted to take the “infant into the desert, where he would have scooped sand with his hands until he had created a hole large enough to hold a tiny baby, and then he would have pushed that sand over the baby so that she would have sucked sand rather than air into her lungs until she had died an agonizing death.”  He then “shouted for his three older daughters to line up and wait for his return as he was going to throw those three in the village well.” 

Fortunately, an uncle to the little baby intervened and asked that the father pass the newborn to him; instead, the newborn was “tossed on the dirt floor” while her father left.  Since her father did not insist upon custody of his daughters, the unwanted child had a sliver of a chance at life.  In Saudi Arabia, “if a man claims custody from the first day of a child’s birth, no one will defy the father.”  Had the infant’s father “demanded guardianship, no one would have stood in his way,” and he would have murdered all his daughters.

This family’s ordeal was far from over.  The baby’s grandparents demonstrated intense animosity to their daughter and her children.  Although illiterate, this now single mother instinctively understood that if “females are forced to be ignorant, then the women have no alternative but to live the life of a slave to a man.”  As she recounts the bravery and perseverance of her mother, the grown-up Dr. Meena explains that although she is “the daughter of a woman who could not write her name, she is a doctor who has the training and skills to save lives.”

There are changes afoot in the Arab Middle East, and they will come about because of the tenacious fearlessness of women such as Dr. Meena’s mother. 

In Iran, heroic women, “by risking their lives, have unmasked the faces of those trying to promote burqas and hijabs as supposed ‘symbols of liberation.'”  Yet these shackles  are the very ones the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, and the likes of Linda Sarsour continue to promote.  Western women would do well to speak out against any individual or organization who wishes to impose sharia’s anti-woman regulations, no matter how enticing the speaker sounds.

It is instructive to see what Iranian women wore before the 1979 revolution.  In December 2017, Iranian officials stated that “women will no longer be arrested for not wearing a hijab.”  Instead, women who do not wear the hijab in public “will be forced to attend Islam educational classes.”

Qanta Ahmed, who was raised as an observant Muslim in a British family, strongly supports “the right to ban the veil.”  Wearing of the veil is “what happens when Islamists are tolerated by a [W]estern culture that’s absurdly anxious to avoid offen[s]e.  This strange, unwitting collaboration between liberals and extremists has been going on for years.”  Her medical career took her to Saudi Arabia for two years, where she “was mandated by law to wear the hijab, covering all of [her] hair and neck.”

For … two years, I became intimately acquainted with the cumbersome nature of forced veiling and its impracticality – even seeing it imposed upon my unconscious female patients.  Where the veil is mandatory, a kind of oppression is implemented: an oppression that has absolutely no basis in Islam.

In fact, “rigid interpretations of the veil are a recent invention.”  They are not derived from the Quran, but have become a “form of misogyny which claims a false basis in the divine.”

Instead of fighting alongside these Muslim women, far too many Western feminists join Islamist terrorists.  Not only do they remain mute, but their presence at certain events “actively endorses and legitimizes the rule” of those who wish to keep women oppressed.  How tone-deaf is Federica Mogherini, the high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy, who visited Iran?  In fact, “[w]hen Mogherini smiles in her hijab in Iran, she is delivering a strong blow to women[‘s] rights movements [as they] attempt to remove the compulsion of the obligatory hijab and grant women equal autonomy, education[,] and freedom.  She is empowering suppression.”

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown writes that “[a]s a practi[c]ing (though flawed) Shia Muslim, [she watches] … with apprehension.  So too other Muslims worldwide, the silent many, watch and tremble.”  Alibhai-Brown writes “about Qasim Amin who in 1899 wrote ‘The Liberation of Women.’  He was the John Stuart Mill of the Arab world.”  In the early 1920s, Egyptian women and educated Iranian women began feminist magazines and “campaigned against the veil,” yet these people “have been written out of  history or are dismissed as [W]estern stooges by some contemporary Muslim intellectuals.”  In Morocco and Pakistan in the 1960s, there were those who “rightly saw the veil as a tool and symbol of oppression and subservience.”  For Alibhai-Brown, “the veils represent both religious arrogance and subjugation; they both desexuali[z]e and fervidly sexuali[z]e.”  Hence, “a veiled female … represents an affront to female dignity, autonomy[,] and potential.”

She demands that those who do veil consider women in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and even the West, who are prosecuted, flogged, tortured, and killed for not complying.  In fact, those “who are forced[] cannot speak out.”  How many feminists understand that “sexual violence in Saudi Arabia and Iran is appallingly high, as is body dysmorphia”?  But is this any surprise when an imam in Falls Church, Virginia asserts that painful female genital mutilation (FGM) is a means to “prevent women from being ‘hypersexual'”?

Female abuse is rampant.  Child marriages among migrants from the Middle East, Asia, and Africa are escalating in Denmark, Sweden, and Germany with girls as young as eleven being married off.  Polygamy, while illegal in Europe, is proliferating as many immigrants bring multiple wives and children with them.  Britain’s first female Islamic judge said, “[T]he [British] government cannot … ask Muslims not to have more than one wife.” 

“Disobedient” wives undergo beatings as well as being burned alive all in the name of sharia.  In 2017, an Iranian child bride was beaten by her husband and forced to give up her children.  She fled to Australia.  She revealed that “a person who [decides to convert] in Iran will be deemed an apostate and the punishment is death.”  She explains that she “hated Islam and its regressive laws in Iran … a religion with no value or respect for women.  It recogni[z]es women as only a means of sexual pleasure for men.”

Instead of speaking out against such repression and violence, the fashion world is now turning the Islamic veil into a “global garment.”  Mattel “unveiled” the world’s first hijab-wearing Barbie doll.  Dolce & Gabbana is producing a collection of hijabs and abayas to Muslim customers in the Middle East.  Playboy had a Muslim woman wearing a hijab.  Nike released a performance hijab outfit for athletes.

Why should Western society in any way, shape or form promote any symbol of Islamic tyranny?  Would a Nazi doll have been promoted in the 1940s?  Greed, ignorance, and indifference aptly describe these corporate decisions.

We, who are fortunate to live in the West, are morally obligated to unequivocally state that “instead of embracing these veils, a true feminism should defend the rights and freedoms of all women.”  We should not support anything that endorses the repression of women. 

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.



Source link

Trump's Unnoticed Great First-Year Accomplishment


Conservatives and Republicans gave President Trump kudos for his remarkable list of accomplishments in his first year in office. 

One crucial Trump accomplishment appears to have gone unnoticed.  Trump repeatedly spoke the truth about issues when fake news media demanded that we either embrace their lies or stay silent.  Singlehandedly, Trump has opened the door for Americans to freely speak truth again.

Before Trump entered the political arena, fake news media controlled public speech with an iron fist.  Citizens and politicians knew they had better toe the politically correct line or suffer severe consequences.

When fake news media demanded that we ignore biology and pretend Bruce Jenner is a woman, Americans played along with Bruce’s mental disorder for fear of public humiliation and economic crucifixion by fake news media.

NFL player Don Jones broke fake news media’s ban on speaking truth publicly.  When Michael Sam kissed his boyfriend on national TV, Jones tweeted what tens of millions of Americans were thinking: “OMG, horrible.”  Jones was immediately high-tech lynched by fake news media, sentenced to forced mind-altering therapy. 

When Trump announced that he was running for president, he said he would deal with the problem of criminal illegals invading our country.  Illegals and the accompanying criminals are another issue fake news media forbid us to speak truthfully about.  Trump, in essence, said, Screw fake news media’s rules about what truths we are allowed to state publicly.

Trump honestly addressing the problem of illegals invading our country sparked a fake news media firestorm against him.  Fake news media launched a bogus storyline that Trump is a racist who hates all Mexicans.  In their usual fearful submission to fake news media, conservatives and Republicans ran to microphones to condemn and distance themselves from what fake news media decreed to be Trump’s “racist” remarks.

However, a majority of American voters did not buy fake news media’s bogus Trump-is-racist narrative.  Quite the opposite.  We the People were elated by Trump’s unprecedented lack of fear of fake news media.  Trump remained steadfast in speaking truth, exposing the negative impact of illegals invading our country with no desire to assimilate.  Trump boldly disobeying fake news media’s ban on speaking truth inspires all Americans to begin speaking truth again.

Folks, we are at war: fake news media versus America.  Fake news media believe that America is the greatest source of evil on the planet.  Their 24-7 laser-focused mission is to bring down America from her throne as the world superpower.  Fake news media also seek to transform America away from her foundation of Christian values and principles.  Fake news media relentlessly sell their lie that a majority of Americans share their disdain for our homeland.

That horrifying Sunday when Americans watched the entire NFL (players, coaches, and management), in essence, taking a knee against our country, Americans were stunned with disbelief.  How on Earth could the NFL think a majority of Americans and football fans agree with its staffers disrespecting our flag, national anthem, country, fallen veterans, active military, and brave men and women in blue?  In short, the NFL believed fake news media’s bogus storyline that America and cops routinely abuse blacks and that football fans would support the NFL protest.  Polls confirm that the NFL made a huge miscalculation.

As I stated, folks, we are at war: fake news media versus America.

Fake news media have suppressed our First Amendment right of free speech for years.  Anyone who dares speak truth that contradicts a fake news media lie is severely punished – branded stupid, crazy, or guilty of hate speech.

While you were sleeping or taking your kids to soccer, fake news media began the process of criminalizing speaking truth, disagreeing with their socialist-progressive agenda.

Outrageously, fake news media seek to criminalize scientists expressing skepticism regarding man-made climate change.  Fake news media actually say “climate change-deniers” should be thrown into jail. 

Fake news media appear to love all things Islam while hating Christians.  Obama’s DOJ threatened to jail anyone caught speaking badly about Islam.  Meanwhile, Obama was unprecedented in his relentless presidential trashing of Christians. 

Fake news media’s sole purpose is to block truth while spreading lies and deception.  By controlling speech, fake news media can use pretty words to paint a smiley face on evil, depravity, and sin unabated.  Trump courageously speaking truth has caused a serious crack in fake news media’s control-what-truths-Americans-are-allowed-to-publicly-express armor.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth: http://bit.ly/2kZqmUk
http://LloydMarcus.com

Conservatives and Republicans gave President Trump kudos for his remarkable list of accomplishments in his first year in office. 

One crucial Trump accomplishment appears to have gone unnoticed.  Trump repeatedly spoke the truth about issues when fake news media demanded that we either embrace their lies or stay silent.  Singlehandedly, Trump has opened the door for Americans to freely speak truth again.

Before Trump entered the political arena, fake news media controlled public speech with an iron fist.  Citizens and politicians knew they had better toe the politically correct line or suffer severe consequences.

When fake news media demanded that we ignore biology and pretend Bruce Jenner is a woman, Americans played along with Bruce’s mental disorder for fear of public humiliation and economic crucifixion by fake news media.

NFL player Don Jones broke fake news media’s ban on speaking truth publicly.  When Michael Sam kissed his boyfriend on national TV, Jones tweeted what tens of millions of Americans were thinking: “OMG, horrible.”  Jones was immediately high-tech lynched by fake news media, sentenced to forced mind-altering therapy. 

When Trump announced that he was running for president, he said he would deal with the problem of criminal illegals invading our country.  Illegals and the accompanying criminals are another issue fake news media forbid us to speak truthfully about.  Trump, in essence, said, Screw fake news media’s rules about what truths we are allowed to state publicly.

Trump honestly addressing the problem of illegals invading our country sparked a fake news media firestorm against him.  Fake news media launched a bogus storyline that Trump is a racist who hates all Mexicans.  In their usual fearful submission to fake news media, conservatives and Republicans ran to microphones to condemn and distance themselves from what fake news media decreed to be Trump’s “racist” remarks.

However, a majority of American voters did not buy fake news media’s bogus Trump-is-racist narrative.  Quite the opposite.  We the People were elated by Trump’s unprecedented lack of fear of fake news media.  Trump remained steadfast in speaking truth, exposing the negative impact of illegals invading our country with no desire to assimilate.  Trump boldly disobeying fake news media’s ban on speaking truth inspires all Americans to begin speaking truth again.

Folks, we are at war: fake news media versus America.  Fake news media believe that America is the greatest source of evil on the planet.  Their 24-7 laser-focused mission is to bring down America from her throne as the world superpower.  Fake news media also seek to transform America away from her foundation of Christian values and principles.  Fake news media relentlessly sell their lie that a majority of Americans share their disdain for our homeland.

That horrifying Sunday when Americans watched the entire NFL (players, coaches, and management), in essence, taking a knee against our country, Americans were stunned with disbelief.  How on Earth could the NFL think a majority of Americans and football fans agree with its staffers disrespecting our flag, national anthem, country, fallen veterans, active military, and brave men and women in blue?  In short, the NFL believed fake news media’s bogus storyline that America and cops routinely abuse blacks and that football fans would support the NFL protest.  Polls confirm that the NFL made a huge miscalculation.

As I stated, folks, we are at war: fake news media versus America.

Fake news media have suppressed our First Amendment right of free speech for years.  Anyone who dares speak truth that contradicts a fake news media lie is severely punished – branded stupid, crazy, or guilty of hate speech.

While you were sleeping or taking your kids to soccer, fake news media began the process of criminalizing speaking truth, disagreeing with their socialist-progressive agenda.

Outrageously, fake news media seek to criminalize scientists expressing skepticism regarding man-made climate change.  Fake news media actually say “climate change-deniers” should be thrown into jail. 

Fake news media appear to love all things Islam while hating Christians.  Obama’s DOJ threatened to jail anyone caught speaking badly about Islam.  Meanwhile, Obama was unprecedented in his relentless presidential trashing of Christians. 

Fake news media’s sole purpose is to block truth while spreading lies and deception.  By controlling speech, fake news media can use pretty words to paint a smiley face on evil, depravity, and sin unabated.  Trump courageously speaking truth has caused a serious crack in fake news media’s control-what-truths-Americans-are-allowed-to-publicly-express armor.  Thank you, Mr. President.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth: http://bit.ly/2kZqmUk
http://LloydMarcus.com



Source link

Scorning the Left


Have you ever been laughed at publicly?  Mocked?  Ridiculed?  Shown scorn in a social or professional setting?

It doesn’t matter what the reason may have been – if you answered yes to any of the above questions, you didn’t enjoy it one bit.  It doesn’t matter if it was justified or not, and it’s doubtful that you would agree that it was justified if you were on the receiving end.  Regardless, it was not in any way pleasant if you were the butt of the laughter, the mocking, the ridicule, the scorn.

In today’s culture, these weapons have become something gleefully utilized by the left.  It is standard practice.  We on the right then dutifully recoil from engaging in such vulgarity – “oh, the humanity” – condemning it as mean, insensitive, callous, or sinking to “their” level.

It’s time for this to change.   

Daily we see public articles, tweets, interviews, blog posts, etc., etc., even entire television shows laughing, mocking, ridiculing, and scorning conservatives.  They reach vast audiences of low-information, unengaged, and poorly educated masses, who then vote accordingly.  Conservatives tend to react privately with other conservatives (and only other conservatives), and generally with incredulity, anger, embarrassment, and paralysis (in that order) – and that’s all.

We conservatives, for too long, have been so cowed by such affronts that we have remained silent.  We have inadvertently given our antagonists a massive weapon against us, used effectively and often.  A plethora of things are said daily by the left that are so over the top, so disconnected from reality, so insane that they deserve intense ridicule.  But we on the right too often try to use logic, reason, and truth to counter the left, if we’re not too busy remaining silent, when what we should be doing is engaging in a hearty laugh, and nothing else.   

Ridicule has immense power.  Saul Alinsky knew it and codified it in his Rules for Radicals.  President Trump clearly knows it and utilizes ridicule often, with great efficacy.  We on the right need to relearn this fine art.  If we used this weapon as effectively as the left does, we could pull this country back onto the right track far faster than President Trump can do it on his own.

I find myself inwardly guffawing at the insanity of the left many times every day.  You probably do, too.  There is a lefty in my town who gets shut down on a regular basis because of the ridicule showered on him by the rest of us.  We like him, and we don’t try to stop his inane comments.  No.  We laugh at him.  Ridicule works.

Laugh, mock, ridicule, and shower scorn upon these insane lefties.  We know that reason won’t work.  We know that results won’t work.  (Obama takes responsibility for the Trump economy, for instance, and leftists sincerely buy into that garbage.)  Ah, but laughter, now – that will take down many an ardent lefty.  Mockery shall make for mindless raving from our deluded brethren.  Ridicule can bring forth a frothing rage, and scorn…well, scorn is soul-rending stuff, even for those who profess to have no soul.

They will stomp their feet and call us bullies.  They will bray about our insensitivity and rail against our heartlessness.  They will don their pussy hats and pajamas and march for…something.  They will project upon us every pathology they themselves possess and pretend it is we who are the crazy ones.  We’ll keep on laughing.  Most sane people will side with conservatives, because crazy isn’t what most average people want.  Eventually, the lefties will slink away, tails between their legs, because there is no real response to ridicule other than ridicule.  We should know; we’ve been slinking away in the face of mockery for decades.  We have not fought back with the same weapon.  We have been content to “bring a knife to a gunfight.”

Until President Trump.  Whether you know it or not, his controversial tweets are really a license – a license to do to them exactly what they’ve done to us.  Don’t believe in global warming?  You are laughed at as a science-denier.  Don’t think a man can become a woman, or a woman a man?  You are mocked as a transphobe.  Think mass unvetted immigration is an invasion, legal or not?  You are ridiculed as a xenophobe, a white supremacist nationalist, a Nazi, for nothing more than pride of country.  Think it’s okay to be white?  You are scorned as a bigot.  And it works.

Ask yourself if you’d be comfortable standing up at work and announcing that man-made climate change is a scam; that you will never call Bruce Jenner “Caitlyn”; that we should build the wall and stop all immigration for at least a decade; or that yes, it’s okay to be white (especially if you aren’t).  If you answered no, then you have been laughed at, mocked, ridiculed, and scorned into silence.  And yes, such a move could very well cost you a job, a friendship, even a close relationship.  But these tactics work, and if we can find the courage of our convictions, we need to start using these supremely effective tools.   

Scorn, after all, should be a two-way street.  The left richly deserves, and regularly invites, mockery.  Let’s oblige.  Ridicule is so easy under the circumstances as to be…well, laughable.  Let the laughter begin! 

Have you ever been laughed at publicly?  Mocked?  Ridiculed?  Shown scorn in a social or professional setting?

It doesn’t matter what the reason may have been – if you answered yes to any of the above questions, you didn’t enjoy it one bit.  It doesn’t matter if it was justified or not, and it’s doubtful that you would agree that it was justified if you were on the receiving end.  Regardless, it was not in any way pleasant if you were the butt of the laughter, the mocking, the ridicule, the scorn.

In today’s culture, these weapons have become something gleefully utilized by the left.  It is standard practice.  We on the right then dutifully recoil from engaging in such vulgarity – “oh, the humanity” – condemning it as mean, insensitive, callous, or sinking to “their” level.

It’s time for this to change.   

Daily we see public articles, tweets, interviews, blog posts, etc., etc., even entire television shows laughing, mocking, ridiculing, and scorning conservatives.  They reach vast audiences of low-information, unengaged, and poorly educated masses, who then vote accordingly.  Conservatives tend to react privately with other conservatives (and only other conservatives), and generally with incredulity, anger, embarrassment, and paralysis (in that order) – and that’s all.

We conservatives, for too long, have been so cowed by such affronts that we have remained silent.  We have inadvertently given our antagonists a massive weapon against us, used effectively and often.  A plethora of things are said daily by the left that are so over the top, so disconnected from reality, so insane that they deserve intense ridicule.  But we on the right too often try to use logic, reason, and truth to counter the left, if we’re not too busy remaining silent, when what we should be doing is engaging in a hearty laugh, and nothing else.   

Ridicule has immense power.  Saul Alinsky knew it and codified it in his Rules for Radicals.  President Trump clearly knows it and utilizes ridicule often, with great efficacy.  We on the right need to relearn this fine art.  If we used this weapon as effectively as the left does, we could pull this country back onto the right track far faster than President Trump can do it on his own.

I find myself inwardly guffawing at the insanity of the left many times every day.  You probably do, too.  There is a lefty in my town who gets shut down on a regular basis because of the ridicule showered on him by the rest of us.  We like him, and we don’t try to stop his inane comments.  No.  We laugh at him.  Ridicule works.

Laugh, mock, ridicule, and shower scorn upon these insane lefties.  We know that reason won’t work.  We know that results won’t work.  (Obama takes responsibility for the Trump economy, for instance, and leftists sincerely buy into that garbage.)  Ah, but laughter, now – that will take down many an ardent lefty.  Mockery shall make for mindless raving from our deluded brethren.  Ridicule can bring forth a frothing rage, and scorn…well, scorn is soul-rending stuff, even for those who profess to have no soul.

They will stomp their feet and call us bullies.  They will bray about our insensitivity and rail against our heartlessness.  They will don their pussy hats and pajamas and march for…something.  They will project upon us every pathology they themselves possess and pretend it is we who are the crazy ones.  We’ll keep on laughing.  Most sane people will side with conservatives, because crazy isn’t what most average people want.  Eventually, the lefties will slink away, tails between their legs, because there is no real response to ridicule other than ridicule.  We should know; we’ve been slinking away in the face of mockery for decades.  We have not fought back with the same weapon.  We have been content to “bring a knife to a gunfight.”

Until President Trump.  Whether you know it or not, his controversial tweets are really a license – a license to do to them exactly what they’ve done to us.  Don’t believe in global warming?  You are laughed at as a science-denier.  Don’t think a man can become a woman, or a woman a man?  You are mocked as a transphobe.  Think mass unvetted immigration is an invasion, legal or not?  You are ridiculed as a xenophobe, a white supremacist nationalist, a Nazi, for nothing more than pride of country.  Think it’s okay to be white?  You are scorned as a bigot.  And it works.

Ask yourself if you’d be comfortable standing up at work and announcing that man-made climate change is a scam; that you will never call Bruce Jenner “Caitlyn”; that we should build the wall and stop all immigration for at least a decade; or that yes, it’s okay to be white (especially if you aren’t).  If you answered no, then you have been laughed at, mocked, ridiculed, and scorned into silence.  And yes, such a move could very well cost you a job, a friendship, even a close relationship.  But these tactics work, and if we can find the courage of our convictions, we need to start using these supremely effective tools.   

Scorn, after all, should be a two-way street.  The left richly deserves, and regularly invites, mockery.  Let’s oblige.  Ridicule is so easy under the circumstances as to be…well, laughable.  Let the laughter begin! 



Source link

It would be cheaper and more efficient if the MSM just reprinted old material about Reagan


If you want to see how things haven’t changed in the last three and a half decades, just read what the New York Times wrote about President Ronald Reagan.  They are essentially pulling the same story out to write about President Donald Trump.

From the beginning of his [p]residency, Mr. Reagan and his aides have understood and exploited what they acknowledge to be the built[] in tendency of television to emphasize appearances and impressions more than information. 


Central to the [p]resident’s overall strategy has been his unusual ability to deal with television and print reporters on his own terms – to decide when, where[,] and how he will engage them.  In short, the art of controlled access.


Under that broad definition, even [p]residents who have disliked and distrusted the press have met with reporters on a fairly regular basis and given spirited, detailed answers to their questions. 


Mr. Reagan has been an exception.  During his [a]dministration, he has tended to operate in a kind of cocoon, sheltered from the press.  Compared with his predecessors, he has held few formal news conferences.  In public appearances, he strictly limits opportunities for questions. 

The media and Democrats worried that Reagan would start World War III, but he ended the Cold War. His famous bombing comment – “My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever.  We begin bombing in five minutes.” – is analogous to Trump’s instantly famous “bigger button” tweet. 

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!


— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2018

The following comments about President Reagan are enlightening because they are so similar to what is said about Trump today.  Maybe journalists could just substitute “Trump” for “Reagan” on old material using Microsoft Word and head to the bar.  It would be a lot easier than saying the same things in different ways every day. 

“Prepare yourself for some bad news: Ronald Reagan’s library just burned down.  Both books were destroyed.  But the real horror: He hadn’t finished coloring either one of them.” 

–Gore Vidal 

“For too long in this society, we have celebrated unrestrained individualism over common community.  For too long as a nation, we have been lulled by the anthem of self-interest.  For a decade, led by Ronald Reagan, self-aggrandizement has been the full-throated cry of this society: ‘I’ve got mine, so why don’t you get yours’ and ‘What’s in it for me?'” 

–Joe Biden 

“He’s cutting the heart out of the American dream to own a home and have a good job … and still he’s popular[.]” 

–Chris Matthews, Tip and the Gipper: When Politics Worked 

“We cannot build a vital economy by delivering pizzas to one another.” 

–Jim Wright 

“In Reagan’s world, we have to be geared up to fight a foe that could barely feed its own people.  And meanwhile, our real troubles have to be mocked.  Global warming.  Nuclear proliferation.  Corrupt governments supported by my tax dollars and everyone’s complacency.” 

–Robert Reed, Clarkesworld Magazine, Issue 108 

“Despite an unimpressive first term in office, which featured huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and tax increases for everyone else, Reagan was re[-]elected in 1984 in an unprecedented landslide, winning forty-nine of the fifty states against hapless Democrat Walter Mondale.  While he has become the patron saint of all Republicans, especially those who revel in wearing the “conservative” mantle, Reagan’s record is far, far removed from his rhetoric.  Despite this, the collective delusion of his supporters is best exemplified by noted Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan’s claims, regarding his 1980 campaign promises, that they were “[d]one, done, done, done, done, done[,] and done.  Every bit of it.” 

–Donald Jeffries, Hidden History: An Exposé of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics 

(Quotations courtesy of GoodReads.) 

Thank goodness we have Trump, definitely not an autocrat or dictator, who knows we should enforce laws and is trying to reduce the power of an ever powerful government and give the purse and power back to the people where it belongs.  Thank goodness we have Trump instead of Hillary, who would have continued to amass more money and power for the greedy government.

If you want to see how things haven’t changed in the last three and a half decades, just read what the New York Times wrote about President Ronald Reagan.  They are essentially pulling the same story out to write about President Donald Trump.

From the beginning of his [p]residency, Mr. Reagan and his aides have understood and exploited what they acknowledge to be the built[] in tendency of television to emphasize appearances and impressions more than information. 


Central to the [p]resident’s overall strategy has been his unusual ability to deal with television and print reporters on his own terms – to decide when, where[,] and how he will engage them.  In short, the art of controlled access.


Under that broad definition, even [p]residents who have disliked and distrusted the press have met with reporters on a fairly regular basis and given spirited, detailed answers to their questions. 


Mr. Reagan has been an exception.  During his [a]dministration, he has tended to operate in a kind of cocoon, sheltered from the press.  Compared with his predecessors, he has held few formal news conferences.  In public appearances, he strictly limits opportunities for questions. 

The media and Democrats worried that Reagan would start World War III, but he ended the Cold War. His famous bombing comment – “My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever.  We begin bombing in five minutes.” – is analogous to Trump’s instantly famous “bigger button” tweet. 

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!


— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2018

The following comments about President Reagan are enlightening because they are so similar to what is said about Trump today.  Maybe journalists could just substitute “Trump” for “Reagan” on old material using Microsoft Word and head to the bar.  It would be a lot easier than saying the same things in different ways every day. 

“Prepare yourself for some bad news: Ronald Reagan’s library just burned down.  Both books were destroyed.  But the real horror: He hadn’t finished coloring either one of them.” 

–Gore Vidal 

“For too long in this society, we have celebrated unrestrained individualism over common community.  For too long as a nation, we have been lulled by the anthem of self-interest.  For a decade, led by Ronald Reagan, self-aggrandizement has been the full-throated cry of this society: ‘I’ve got mine, so why don’t you get yours’ and ‘What’s in it for me?'” 

–Joe Biden 

“He’s cutting the heart out of the American dream to own a home and have a good job … and still he’s popular[.]” 

–Chris Matthews, Tip and the Gipper: When Politics Worked 

“We cannot build a vital economy by delivering pizzas to one another.” 

–Jim Wright 

“In Reagan’s world, we have to be geared up to fight a foe that could barely feed its own people.  And meanwhile, our real troubles have to be mocked.  Global warming.  Nuclear proliferation.  Corrupt governments supported by my tax dollars and everyone’s complacency.” 

–Robert Reed, Clarkesworld Magazine, Issue 108 

“Despite an unimpressive first term in office, which featured huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and tax increases for everyone else, Reagan was re[-]elected in 1984 in an unprecedented landslide, winning forty-nine of the fifty states against hapless Democrat Walter Mondale.  While he has become the patron saint of all Republicans, especially those who revel in wearing the “conservative” mantle, Reagan’s record is far, far removed from his rhetoric.  Despite this, the collective delusion of his supporters is best exemplified by noted Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan’s claims, regarding his 1980 campaign promises, that they were “[d]one, done, done, done, done, done[,] and done.  Every bit of it.” 

–Donald Jeffries, Hidden History: An Exposé of Modern Crimes, Conspiracies, and Cover-Ups in American Politics 

(Quotations courtesy of GoodReads.) 

Thank goodness we have Trump, definitely not an autocrat or dictator, who knows we should enforce laws and is trying to reduce the power of an ever powerful government and give the purse and power back to the people where it belongs.  Thank goodness we have Trump instead of Hillary, who would have continued to amass more money and power for the greedy government.



Source link

Aid to the Palestinians Is Counterproductive to Peace


President Trump has suggested that the U.S. start cutting aid to the Palestinians because of their reluctance to negotiate in good faith for peace with Israel.  Like the mouse that roared, Palestinian officials are acting with outrage at the president’s tweets.  They seem to feel that they have a God-given right to U.S. taxpayer money. 

To scope out the situation, we first need to look at how much aid (welfare) is involved.  The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has a budget of approximately $1.23 billion of which $355 million comes from Uncle Sam.  From that, about $95 million goes to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.  On top of that, America also sends $290 million to the Palestinians through the U.S. Agency for International Development.  Since 1994, this has come to approximately $5.2 billion.

UNRWA claims that nearly 20% of its budget goes toward education.  This might seem like a lofty goal, but one has to wonder why anti-Israeli hate is allowed to be taught to the young Palestinians in their schools.  This in and of itself is a major reason why the Palestinians are trapped in a rut of eternal victimhood. 

The Palestinian Authority’s new textbooks for first to fourth grade demonizes Israel and glorify “martyrdom,” a report published Sunday claims, citing an “alarming deterioration” since a previous study.

The report, by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-se), says that the 2016-2017 elementary school curriculum in the P.A. “teaches students to be martyrs, demonizes and denies the existence of Israel, and focuses on a ‘return’ to an exclusively Palestinian homeland.”

Israeli officials say these textbooks, which show maps that don’t include Israel and have passages in them that glorify terrorist attackers, are a key source of incitement that drives terror attacks.  To this we can add that they lock in yet another Palestinian generation to the delusion that Israel doesn’t exist and that someday, the Palestinians will come to have the land that is now Israel.

In February, at his first White House meeting with President Donald Trump, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said incitement is a key factor in the long-running conflict with the Palestinians.  “They continue to call for Israel’s destruction – inside their schools, inside their mosques, inside their textbooks.  You have to read it to believe it,” he said.

“I think the Palestinians have to get rid of some of that hate that they’ve taught from an early age,” Trump said, responding to a reporter’s question about concessions each side needs to make.

Apart from the schools, the Palestinians are also known to give money to the families of terrorists, whom they call “martyrs.”  Whose money is that?

Even when this aid is legitimately spent, it still has a downside.  It relieves the Palestinian leadership from the responsibility of looking out for its people’s welfare.  It locks the Palestinian people into a continual state of dependency while allowing their leadership to “heroically” thumb its nose at bargaining with Israel in good faith.  Looked at in this light, one can argue that U.S. aid to the Palestinians is counterproductive.  It allows those Arabs to avoid reality and perpetuate their myths – myths that keep them chained to a status of permanent refugees who, in large part, have their food, shelter, and health care dependent on the generosity of others, mainly in the West.  This has been going on since 1949 – nearly seventy years.

Under these conditions, it is no less than obnoxious that any U.S. money goes to the Palestinians.  If others want to fund them, let them.  If the Palestinians want to be intransigent, let them, but not on our dime.  It is to be hoped that President Trump is serious when he says the U.S. might cut aid given to the West Bank and Gaza.  That money is better used at home – and the cuts could sober up the Palestinian leadership. 

One last thought on this aid: When was the last time the Palestinians ever said “thank you” to America for its largesse?  It seems that simple gratitude might be another virtue missing from their palette.

President Trump has suggested that the U.S. start cutting aid to the Palestinians because of their reluctance to negotiate in good faith for peace with Israel.  Like the mouse that roared, Palestinian officials are acting with outrage at the president’s tweets.  They seem to feel that they have a God-given right to U.S. taxpayer money. 

To scope out the situation, we first need to look at how much aid (welfare) is involved.  The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has a budget of approximately $1.23 billion of which $355 million comes from Uncle Sam.  From that, about $95 million goes to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.  On top of that, America also sends $290 million to the Palestinians through the U.S. Agency for International Development.  Since 1994, this has come to approximately $5.2 billion.

UNRWA claims that nearly 20% of its budget goes toward education.  This might seem like a lofty goal, but one has to wonder why anti-Israeli hate is allowed to be taught to the young Palestinians in their schools.  This in and of itself is a major reason why the Palestinians are trapped in a rut of eternal victimhood. 

The Palestinian Authority’s new textbooks for first to fourth grade demonizes Israel and glorify “martyrdom,” a report published Sunday claims, citing an “alarming deterioration” since a previous study.

The report, by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-se), says that the 2016-2017 elementary school curriculum in the P.A. “teaches students to be martyrs, demonizes and denies the existence of Israel, and focuses on a ‘return’ to an exclusively Palestinian homeland.”

Israeli officials say these textbooks, which show maps that don’t include Israel and have passages in them that glorify terrorist attackers, are a key source of incitement that drives terror attacks.  To this we can add that they lock in yet another Palestinian generation to the delusion that Israel doesn’t exist and that someday, the Palestinians will come to have the land that is now Israel.

In February, at his first White House meeting with President Donald Trump, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said incitement is a key factor in the long-running conflict with the Palestinians.  “They continue to call for Israel’s destruction – inside their schools, inside their mosques, inside their textbooks.  You have to read it to believe it,” he said.

“I think the Palestinians have to get rid of some of that hate that they’ve taught from an early age,” Trump said, responding to a reporter’s question about concessions each side needs to make.

Apart from the schools, the Palestinians are also known to give money to the families of terrorists, whom they call “martyrs.”  Whose money is that?

Even when this aid is legitimately spent, it still has a downside.  It relieves the Palestinian leadership from the responsibility of looking out for its people’s welfare.  It locks the Palestinian people into a continual state of dependency while allowing their leadership to “heroically” thumb its nose at bargaining with Israel in good faith.  Looked at in this light, one can argue that U.S. aid to the Palestinians is counterproductive.  It allows those Arabs to avoid reality and perpetuate their myths – myths that keep them chained to a status of permanent refugees who, in large part, have their food, shelter, and health care dependent on the generosity of others, mainly in the West.  This has been going on since 1949 – nearly seventy years.

Under these conditions, it is no less than obnoxious that any U.S. money goes to the Palestinians.  If others want to fund them, let them.  If the Palestinians want to be intransigent, let them, but not on our dime.  It is to be hoped that President Trump is serious when he says the U.S. might cut aid given to the West Bank and Gaza.  That money is better used at home – and the cuts could sober up the Palestinian leadership. 

One last thought on this aid: When was the last time the Palestinians ever said “thank you” to America for its largesse?  It seems that simple gratitude might be another virtue missing from their palette.



Source link