Celebrity Apartheid Week: Day One

The people have spoken.


More people support Celebrity Apartheid Week than an apartheid week against Iran, North Korea or even Israel, the sanest state in the Middle East.


Why Celebrity Apartheid Week?


Why not?


Why are these individuals placed upon a pedestal? What do they do that eclipses the contributions of doctors, medical researchers, teachers, rescue personnel or even the people on Dirty Jobs whose thankless and unbelievably gross tasks go largely unnoticed? Why are their opinions so seemingly well-informed and carry more weight than those whose job it is to know whereof they speak?


I honestly don't know why these mass-adopting, trend-setting, opinion-morphing "thespians" get a lion's share of our attention. It makes no difference to me how one does her hair or what she wore at some awards show no one watched yet, as the renter of the spotlight, these minutiae are somehow the threads that keep this country from falling into chaos.


There are actors who are damned good at what they do and I'm sure some of them are rather nice citizens but I still don't understand why they need and deserve the attention they get.


Case in point:

Actor Sean Penn is being honoured by a group of Nobel laureates for his relief work in Haiti following the country's devastating January 2010 earthquake.

Penn is to receive the 2012 Peace Summit Award at the 12th World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates. The event will be held in Chicago next month and is expected to draw such luminaries as Poland's Lech Walesa and the Dalai Lama.

Take a moment to soak that in.


The same man who called his former cast-mate "a pig", who pals around with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez , whose trip to Iraq was enlightening (but didn't like the criticism of it) and whose charity- J/P Haitian Relief Organization- received money from the World Bank and the Clinton Foundation- is being feted for his charity work.



He's "honoured", apparently.




More to come...

Friday Freakout

From the war on Christmas to the war on Saint Patrick's Day:

A Massachusetts school principal is renaming "St. Patrick's Day" with "O'Green Day" in an effort to be "inclusive and diverse," while some parents are blasting the decision as "stupid" and illogical.

Lisa Curtin, principal of the Soule Road School in Wilbraham, Mass., decided to change the name to ease discomfort that some students might have in celebrating St. Patrick's Day or Valentine's Day -- which last month was renamed to "Caring and Kindness Day," according to parents with children in the school. 

Stupid and illogical are hardly the words for it. This deliberate obliteration of what is clearly a feast day of the patron saint of Ireland and its replacement with something soft and juvenile is symptomatic of the West's unwillingness to celebrate and stand up for itself.


It's as ugly as these cakes.



I wonder what would O'Brien think.

 I suffered though "Up the Long Ladder" for this?

(with thanks)

Mid-Week Post

Isn't time you did something for you?


If the actions of the South Korean delegation were "unacceptable", what does the UN make of China's complicity in human rights abuses?

The U.N. finds the (justifiably) obnoxious behavior of the South Koreans unacceptable. So what does the U.N. have to say about China sending refugees to gulags, or North Korea torturing them to death there? Also, who the hell invited North Korea to participate in a U.N. meeting about human rights? Invited? Subpoenaed would have been more like it.

That's right- China the bully which has used its power to safeguard its lapdog state, North Korea. It rattles its sabre at South Korea for even thinking it can be concerned about the fate of North Korean defectors:

China could launch a diplomatic counterattack against growing international calls for Beijing to stop the forcible deportation of North Korean defectors. The South Korean government is bracing for the threat of economic retaliation over the issue. 

A government source in Seoul said Tuesday, “We`ve received reports that China has recently stepped up its crackdown on South Koreans residing in China,” adding, “We are trying to find out if the move is related to South Korea’s criticism of China for its forceful repatriation of North Korean escapees.” Another source said, “We`re closely watching China`s movements on negotiations for a proposed free trade agreement and other investment issues.” 


The South Korean Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry is focusing on a talk show aired by the state-run Chinese Central TV that signaled Beijing’s retaliation against Seoul. Song Xiaojun, a critic who joined the program, said, “If someone is hurt (due to this matter), this will undermine (South) Korea’s interests,” adding, “What will they (South Korea) do if China doesn’t trade with them?” “China won`t play with South Korea forever over the issue of North Korean defectors.” 


Gao Zugui, another participant and senior research fellow at the Institute of World Politics under China Institutes of Contemporary of International Relations, also said, “Turning this matter into an issue will be a disaster for South Korea as well,” adding, “If South Korea stirs this matter up into a big thing, the country will be isolated in the end.” 


On this, officials at the South Korean Foreign Ministry said it`s like Beijing has sent a warning to Seoul through the state-run broadcaster. Beijing will show a more hostile response if Washington steps forward to resolve the matter in sync with Seoul, according to experts. 

(with thanks)



I'm sure this is "un-Islamic":

According to several Arabic news sources, last Monday, Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is "necessary to destroy all the churches of the region."

The Grand Mufti made his assertion in response to a question posed by a delegation from Kuwait, regarding the position of a Kuwaiti parliament member who recently called for the "removal" of churches (he later "clarified" by saying he merely meant that no churches should be built in Kuwait). The Kuwaiti delegation wanted to confirm Sharia's position on churches.

Accordingly, the Grand Mufti "stressed that Kuwait was a part of the Arabian Peninsula, and therefore it is necessary to destroy all churches in it."

As with many grand muftis before him, the Sheikh based his proclamation on the famous tradition, or hadith, wherein the prophet of Islam declared on his deathbed that "There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula," which has always been interpreted to mean that only Islam can be practiced in the region.

While the facts of this account speak for themselves, consider further:

Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah is not just some random Muslim hating on churches. He is the Grand Mufti of the nation that brought Islam to the world. Moreover, he is the President of the Supreme Council of Ulema [Islamic scholars] and Chairman of the Standing Committee for Scientific Research and Issuing of Fatwas. Accordingly, when it comes to what Islam teaches, his words are immensely authoritative.

(with thanks)



Two tragic cases of suicide: a Moroccan girl was forced to marry her rapist and an Ethiopian maid takes her own life after being abused by her employer.



Sandra Fluke will testify in front of a Congressional hearing about this:

Since I don't have a Living Human Rights story to share, I thought I'd write one in the voice of a Muslim male student who's a regular at his Toronto public school mosqueteria:

"I'm very comfortable at my school, where sharia is in effect at lunchtime on Fridays, and girls are consigned to their rightful place during prayers."

No she won't. Her handlers won't allow it.



Apparently, people don't know or care what the rules are. Here they are:

The Church sets out specific guidelines regarding how we should prepare ourselves to receive the Lord’s body and blood in Communion. To receive Communion worthily, you must be in a state of grace, have made a good confession since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharistic fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication. 

First, you must be in a state of grace. "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup" (1 Cor. 11:27–28). This is an absolute requirement which can never be dispensed. To receive the Eucharist without sanctifying grace in your soul profanes the Eucharist in the most grievous manner. 

A mortal sin is any sin whose matter is grave and which has been committed willfully and with knowledge of its seriousness. Grave matter includes, but is not limited to, murder, receiving or participating in an abortion, homosexual acts, having sexual intercourse outside of marriage or in an invalid marriage, and deliberately engaging in impure thoughts (Matt. 5:28–29). Scripture contains lists of mortal sins (for example, 1 Cor. 6:9–10 and Gal. 5:19–21). For further information on what constitutes a mortal sin, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

Out of habit and out of fear of what those around them will think if they do not receive Communion, some Catholics, in a state of mortal sin, choose to go forward and offend God rather than stay in the pew while others receive the Eucharist. The Church’s ancient teaching on this particular matter is expressed in the Didache, an early Christian document written around A.D. 70, which states: "Whosoever is holy [i.e., in a state of sanctifying grace], let him approach. Whosoever is not, let him repent" (Didache 10). 

Second, you must have been to confession since your last mortal sin. The Didache witnesses to this practice of the early Church. "But first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one" (Didache 14). 

The 1983 Code of Canon Law indicates that the same requirement applies today. "A person who is conscious of a grave sin is not to . . . receive the body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible" (CIC 916). 

The requirement for sacramental confession can be dispensed if four conditions are fulfilled: (1) there must be a grave reason to receive Communion (for example, danger of death), (2) it must be physically or morally impossible to go to confession first, (3) the person must already be in a state of grace through perfect contrition, and (4) he must resolve to go to confession as soon as possible. 

Third, you must believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (1 Cor. 11:29). Transubstantiation means more than the Real Presence. According to transubstantiation, the bread and wine are actually transformed into the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, with only the appearances of bread and wine remaining. This is why, at the Last Supper, Jesus held what appeared to be bread and wine, yet said: "This is my body. . . . This is my blood" (Mark 14:22-24, cf. Luke 22:14-20). If Christ were merely present along side bread and wine, he would have said "This contains my body. . . . This contains my blood," which he did not say. 

Fourth, you must observe the Eucharistic fast. Canon law states, "One who is to receive the most Holy Eucharist is to abstain from any food or drink, with the exception only of water and medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion" (CIC 919 §1). Elderly people, those who are ill, and their caretakers are excused from the Eucharistic fast (CIC 191 §3). Priests and deacons may not dispense one obligated by the Eucharistic fast unless the bishop has expressly granted such power to them (cf. CIC 89). 

Finally, one must not be under an ecclesiastical censure. Canon law mandates, "Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (CIC 915). 

Provided they are in a state of grace and have met the above requirements, Catholics should receive the Eucharist frequently (cic 898). ...


Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (1 Cor. 11:29–30).

Are people who deliberately make spectacles of themselves still victims? Only a lynch mob in Tehran can tell.



(Muchas, muchas gracias)



Stop me if you've heard any of these things before. From an ad put in the New York Times:

Dear ‘Liberal’ Catholic:

It’s time to quit the Roman Catholic Church.

It’s your moment of truth. Will it be reproductive freedom, or back to the Dark Ages? Do you choose women and their rights, or Bishops and their wrongs? Whose side are you on, anyway?

It is time to make known your dissent from the Catholic Church, in light of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops’ ruthless campaign endangering the right to contraception. If you’re part of the Catholic Church, you’re part of the problem.

Why are you propping up the pillars of a tyrannical and autocratic, woman-hating, sex-perverting, antediluvian Old Boys Club? Why are you aiding and abetting a church that has repeatedly and publicly announced a crusade to ban contraception, abortion and sterilization, and to deny the right of all women everywhere, Catholic or not, to decide whether and when to become mothers? When it comes to reproductive freedom, the Roman Catholic Church is Public Enemy Number One. Think of the acute misery, poverty, needless suffering, unwanted pregnancies, social evils and deaths that can be laid directly at the door of the Church’s antiquated doctrine that birth control is a sin and must be outlawed.

A backer of the Roman Catholic presidential candidate says that if women want to avoid pregnancy we should put an aspirin between our knees? Catholic politicians are urging that the right to contraception should be left up to states? Nearly 50 years after the Supreme Court upheld contraception as a privacy right, we’re going to have to defend this basic freedom all over again?

You’re better than your church. So why? Why continue to attend Mass? Tithe? Why dutifully sacrifice to send your children to parochial schools so they can be brainwashed into the next generation of myrmidons (and, potentially, become the next Church victims)? For that matter, why have you put up with an institution that won’t put up with women priests, that excludes half of humanity?

There's more but if you've heard it once, you really have heard it a thousand times.



But have you heard it like this?

Open Letter to "moderate" Muslims:

It’s time to quit Islam.

It’s your moment of truth. Will it be religious freedom, freedom of speech, or back to the Dark Ages? Do you choose women and their rights, or imams and their wrongs? Whose side are you on?

In light of the ongoing, ruthless, international jihad against non-Muslims, the 1,400-year record of institutionalized oppression of women, the 18,560 Islamic attacks across the world since 9/11, and the endangering of free peoples across the world, if you’re part of the Islamic jihad, you’re part of the problem.

Why are you aiding and abetting Islamic leaders who have repeatedly and publicly announced a jihad to subjugate Christians, Jews, Hindus, and all non-Muslims, and to deny the rights of all women everywhere, Muslim or not?

Think of the acute misery, poverty, needless suffering, social evils and deaths that can be laid directly at the door of the Islam's antiquated doctrine that commands jihad and genocide.

Probably not.



Because he's Mark Steyn:

Pamela Geller was struck by that ad The New York Times ran the other day, “It’s Time To Quit The Catholic Church“, an “open letter to ‘liberal’ and ‘nominal’ Catholics”. So she sent in her own ad, “It’s Time To Quit Islam“, an “open letter to ‘moderate’ Muslims”. Analogous artwork, same pitch, only difference being the intended target. The Times’ Senior Vice-President for Corporate Hogwash called to tell Miss Geller that – surprise! surprise! – they were way less eager to rush this one into print:

Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, just called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. They will be reconsidering it for publication in “a few months.” 

So I said to Mr. Christie, “Isn’t this the very point of the ad? If you feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would you have run that ad?”

Thus the courage of the secular left: If you’re going to be “provocative”, it’s best to do it with people who can’t be provoked. Pamela is right. If you want to be treated with respect by The New York Times and the rest of the multiculti establishment, make it clear you’re willing to kill them. That’s an interesting message to send.

OPEN CHALLENGE TO THE NEW YORK TIMES:  run Pamela Gellar's ad. Show whatever is left of your readership that you support ALL opinions no matter what they may be.



And now, have we lost our good manners?

Monday Post

To start off the week....


Russia and China remain unmoved in their support of Syria:

 The bodies of 47 women and children, some with their throats slit, were found in the restive Syrian city of Homs after a “massacre” that sent families fleeing the area, activists and the opposition said on Monday.

As violence in Syria continues, major powers remained divided over what action to take amid a growing clamour for foreign intervention.

At a UN Security Council meeting in New York, Western governments stepped up their pleas to Russia and China to end their blockage of action over the Syrian government’s deadly assault on protest cities such as Homs.

But Russia showed little sign that it would change its stance, with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov slamming “risky recipes” which he said risked increasing conflict in the Middle East.

Let's withdraw from the UN. Today.



Swift trials apparently mean verdicts a decade later:

 The world's first permanent war crimes court opened nearly a decade ago, promising accountability for brutal tyrants, justice for victims and swift trials for perpetrators.

On Wednesday, the International Criminal Court will hand down its first ever verdict, a ruling in the case of Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, who was detained six years ago and faces two war crimes charges.

Lubanga's case may be a milestone, but he is a low-ranking player. The court has yet to go after key individuals responsible for the crimes against humanity and genocide included in its mandate.

Courts are judged by the cases they take on and the legal precedents they set. Lubanga's verdict is years later than planned. The court's slow progress is a source of disappointment in countries where crimes still go unpunished.

He's not even a big wheel as far as crimes against humanity go and the process is unbelievably slow.



April of the Arab Spring is the cruelest month:

The [Jews] are treacherous. Allah, who created them, told us so. We must be resolute and fill hearts with hatred and loathing. By Allah, the hatred and loathing of Jews is a form of worship. When we make our children loathe the Jews, it is a form of worship of Allah. These are people hated and loathed by Allah. 

(with thanks)



First they came for Ann Coulter. Now they come for Dick Cheney:

Former U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney has cancelled a Canadian speaking appearance due to security concerns sparked by demonstrations during a visit he made to Vancouver last fall, the event promoter said Monday.

Cheney, whom the protesters denounced as a war criminal, was slated to talk about his experiences in office and the current American political situation at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre on April 24.

However, Ryan Ruppert, of Spectre Live Corp., said Cheney and his daughter Elizabeth had begged off via their agent.

"After speaking with their security advisers, they changed their mind on coming to the event," Ruppert said.

"(They) decided it was better for their personal safety they stay out of Canada."

Last Sept. 26, Cheney's appearance in Vancouver was marred by demonstrators who blocked the entrances to the exclusive Vancouver Club.

The activists, who at one point scuffled with police, called for Cheney's arrest for war crimes and booed guests as they arrived at the $500-a-ticket dinner.

One man was arrested for choking a club staff member.

Ruppert said the "thugs" put everyone at risk and forced Cheney to remain inside the club for seven hours until police were able to disperse the protesters and deem it safe for him to leave.

"It was a complete disaster for them because it's a major security issue," he said.

The upshot, he said, is that discussion over American policy on such issues as Guantanamo Bay or the Iraq war is being silenced.

"You lost that conversation because you're talking about a group of thugs," Ruppert said.

"It's a real sad story because it really overshadows what the peaceful protesters, who often have very legitimate points, would be doing and saying."

Those who bought tickets to the Cheney event can either get a full refund or exchange them for an appearance by free-speech activist, Mark Steyn.

It doesn't matter if you like the person or not. Are we a nation of thugs and troglodytes that we chase people off? Apparently so. That's nothing to be proud.



This is the left and they are afraid of natural light.



I may be an ultra-Yankee but I don't think it's fair to accuse the people of the American South of being rubes:

As Alabama and Mississippi prepared for their Tuesday primaries, the water was warm for “aren’t Southerners stupid” jokes on HBO’s “Real Time” Friday night. But host Bill Maher went a step further, deploying House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi’s daughter to Missisippi to find out just how dumb voters are down in the South.

Maher claimed that Pelosi’s daughter, documentary filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi, told him she “did not seek out people who look like what some would say [are] rednecks.”

Pelosi told Maher, “If you took any of the footage we didn’t use, it would look just like the footage we did use.”

Pelosi’s film naturally begins with a stereotypical rendition of “Dixie” and stills of run-down homes. 

As narrator, Pelosi then points out that Mississippi is the most conservative — and poorest — state in the country.

Pelosi then proceeds to press a number of poor white men on why they are conservatives.

The footage has to be seen to be believed, if only because of how unrepresentative Pelosi’s sample is throughout the film. Pelosi only interviewed white men for the project even though recent census data shows that the state is 51.4 percent female and just 59.1 percent white.

Some illustrious persons of the American South: William Faulker, Harper Lee, Flannery O'Connor, Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote, Mark Twain, Robert E. Lee, Muddy Waters, Hunter S. Thompson, George Washington Carver, Gene Roddenberry and Leonard McCoy, MD.

I'm a doctor, Bill Maher, not a jackhole!

You know- rubes like that.


(with thanks)



There is a pill for anything when you think about but you might not want to take it:

What deserves further study is a fairly recent leftist trend to eagerly dive into the murky waters of the Eugenics Ocean provided that the “science” can somehow prove that they are biologically different than their thought-villain nemeses on the right. After rolling their eyes, holding their noses, and chanting “la-la-la-la” at any studies that appeared to establish innate racial differences, they are now wrapping their slender pink tentacles around any study—no matter how dubious its methodology—that suggests leftist egalitarians are almost a different race than their ideological enemies. After decades of claiming they’d eternally discredited what they called “scientific racism,” they are launching forward with a new academic discipline I’ll call “scientific anti-racism.” Or maybe “totalitarian liberal eugenics.” Or maybe I’m still working on its name.

This is "science", according to the left. Don't let them try it at home.



Don't burn a Koran or be rude to an Arab:

In the recent destruction of Commonwealth war graves in Benghazi, Libya (YouTube Video), you can see not just the desecration of graves, but attacks on crosses.

The radical Muslims who are kicking over and smashing headstones marked with crosses (and one with a Star of David), also took pains to demolish a tall "Cross of Sacrifice" standing at the edge of the cemetery.

This was no "furious mob" on a "rampage," as a Daily Mail report put it. Nor was there any evidence in what they were saying that they were angry or reacting to Koran burning by the US military.

The men are methodically, deliberately, and in an organized fashion, going about destroying crosses and objects marked with crosses. Their mood seems happy. Every now and again the cry Allahu Akbar rings out, or a chuckle of joy. They pass comments on the graves as they kick them over: "Break the cross that belongs to those," "This is the grave of a Christian," and, "This tomb has a cross on it: a kaffir [disbeliever]."

An Australian government minister, Craig Emerson, whose father served in Libya in World War II, commented, "There is nothing in Islam that would warrant this sort of behavior."

But is this true? Or just wishful thinking? Certainly many Libyans and Muslims of other nationalities have expressed their abhorrence of these acts. It would be completely wrong to attribute sympathy for such an attack to Muslims as whole. 

But all the same, was this attack on war graves truly senseless and without foundation or precedent in Islam? Regrettably, the answer is "No."

The phenomenon of cross-destruction goes back to the life and example of Muhammad. A tradition reported by al-Waqidi said that if ever Muhammad found an object in his house with the mark of a cross on it, he would destroy it. (W. Muir, The life of Muhammad. Volume 3, p.61, note 47.)

In the YouTube video, when one of the men says, "Break the cross that belongs to those dogs," he uses the same classical Arabic phrase – "break the cross' (the Arabic root is k.s.r 'break') -- which is found in a famous hadith (tradition) about Jesus — understood in Islam to be a Muslim prophet — who will return to the earth as a cross-destroying enforcer of Islamic Sharia law:

Narrated Abu Huraira: "Allah's Apostle said, 'By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely [Jesus,] the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly [as a Just Ruler]; he will break the cross and kill the pigs and there will be no jizya [i.e. no taxation taken from non Muslims: because they will all be forced to convert to Islam]. …'"
(Sahih al-Bukhari: The Book of the Stories of the Prophets. 4:60:3448.)

This phrase 'break the cross' is religious and ritualistic in its overtones, invoking the canon of Islam. It is like a Christian saying 'forgive us our trespasses' in reference to the Lord's Prayer. This is a clear reference to the words of Muhammad, and invokes his authority for the deed being performed.

To pious Muslims, Muhammad is regarded as the "best example" for Muslims to follow, so it is hardly surprising if his enmity to the cross is shared by at least some Muslims today. The following are just some of many examples of cross destruction which can be culled from media reports of recent years:

• Two days before Christmas in 1998, a Catholic church in Faisalabad, Pakistan had its crucifix pulled down by a Muslim leader.
• On March 18, 2004, an Albanian mob attacked and desecrated the church of St Andrew in Podujevo, Kosovo. Photographs distributed to the international media show Muslims, who had climbed up onto the roof, breaking off the prominent metal crosses attached there. There have also been many instances of Muslim mobs smashing crosses in Christian graveyards across Kosovo.
• In April 2007, in the Al-Doura Christian area of Baghdad, Muslim militants instructed Christians to remove visible crosses from atop their churches, and issued a fatwa forbidding Christians from wearing crosses.
• When Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007, some of its militias went on a cross-destroying rampage. The Rosary Sisters convent and school in Gaza was ransacked and looted by masked men and crosses were specifically targeted for destruction. A Christian resident of Gaza also reported having a crucifix ripped from his neck by someone from the Hamas Executive Force, who said, "That is forbidden."
• On Monday 29 October 2007, in the Malaysian Parliament, a parliamentarian, Tuan Syed Hood bin Syed Edros complained about the "display of religious symbols' in front of church schools: 'I, as a responsible person to my religion, race, and country, I state my views that … these crosses need to be destroyed …'"
• Michael Yon has reported on a poster found in Afghanistan ("Destroying the cross is an Islamic obligation") which instructs Muslims to destroy objects with crosses on them.
•  

Antipathy to the cross among Muslims is not limited to Islamic societies: In November 2004, Belmarsh Prison in England was reported to have plans to spend £1.6 million on a mosque. The facility already maintains a multi-denominational chapel, but this has been rejected for use by the Muslim inmates, some of whom had been convicted on terrorism charges, because the chapel contains crosses which have to be covered up when the Muslims say their prayers.

Why are we in the mood to accommodate? Is it fear, a misguided sense of fairness or are we ready to capitulate no matter the cost?



Cambodia: genocide or demicide?

Rather, what happened in Cambodia is what happened in the French Revolution, and in Stalin’s purges and mass collectivization campaigns, and in Mao’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, only on a proportionately larger scale. It was mass murder in the name of equality. It wasn’t “genocide”; it was Communist utopianism carried to its logical extreme. The Khmer Rouge, who called themselves Maoists, believed that the most important social and political value was equality and that in order to create their new, classless society in which everyone was equal, it was necessary to exterminate anyone who might be smarter, or better educated, or wealthier, or more talented than anyone else. Thus, they killed the educated, the bourgeoisie, the middle classes, and the rich; movie stars, pop singers, authors, urban residents, and workers for the former government; and anyone who protested — as well as the families of all the above. Towards the end, they also killed cadres who were thought to be a political threat. Whatever their crimes were, the Khmer Rouge do not seem to have been motivated by racial, ethnic, or religious hatred.

Why could the deliberate liquidation of class or profession not be a genocide?



And now, draw your own leprechaun.

Quickly Now....

According to reports, an American soldier has killed sixteen Afghan civilians:

An American soldier opened fire on villagers near his base in southern Afghanistan Sunday and killed 16 civilians, according to President Hamid Karzai, who called it an "assassination" and furiously demanded an explanation from Washington. Nine children and three women were among the dead.

Ignore the idiot comments following the article and keep in mind that Karzai is in power because of the West, that this statement here so ridiculous it cannot be defended:

"This is an anti-human and anti-Islamic act," said Khan. "Nobody is allowed in any religion in the world to kill children and women."

...and that had an Afghan committed this atrocity, no one would have noticed. That an American will be caught, tried and punished is a sharp contrast between him and a culture that says burning a book which no one can read is worse than maiming and killing other people.



Related: in case we are unclear about the alleged fairness of the religion of peace:

Sudanese Christians who have barely a month to leave the north or risk being treated as foreigners are starting to move, but Christian leaders are concerned that the 8 April deadline set by Islamic-majority Sudan is unrealistic. 

"We are very concerned. Moving is not easy ... people have children in school. They have homes ... It is almost impossible," Roman Catholic Bishop Daniel Adwok, the Khartoum archdiocese auxiliary told ENInews in a telephone interview on 7 March. 

Sudan in February announced the deadline for the former citizens it had stripped of nationality after South Sudan's January 2011 vote to secede. The ultimatum will affect an estimated 500,000-700,000 people, who are mainly Christians of southern origin that still live in the north. 

Many of them fled north during the long civil war fought between the Government of Sudan and the former rebels, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement. They have lived there for decades together with children who were born there. Few have ties with South Sudan.

Had any Western party behaved in such a way, we could find no excuse or forgiveness.



Why the European Union should be allowed to dissolve (if not actively dissolve) and why the government should not worry about talismans concealed under one's clothes as opposed to identity-covering/denigrating garments:

In a highly significant move, ministers will fight a case at the European Court of Human Rights in which two British women will seek to establish their right to display the cross.... 


The Strasbourg case hinges on whether human rights laws protect the right to wear a cross or crucifix at work under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” 

The Christian women bringing the case, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the symbols. 

They want the European Court to rule that this breached their human right to manifest their religion.

The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith” and therefore does not fall under the remit of Article 9. 

Lawyers for the two women claim that the Government is setting the bar too high and that “manifesting” religion includes doing things that are not a “requirement of the faith”, and that they are therefore protected by human rights. 

They say that Christians are given less protection than members of other religions who have been granted special status for garments or symbols such as the Sikh turban and kara bracelet, or the Muslim hijab.

Unbelievable.




And happy Holi.

A Few Things....

.... don't forget to turn your clocks forward.


(Lousy farmers....)


This time last year, earthquakes struck Tohoku and Fukushima (later on Miyagi) with subsequent tsunamis that killed, injured and displaced thousands. One year on, things have been rebuilt.



Why multiculturalism as cultural and moral relevance is wrong:

In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage.

That is a key finding of a new University of British Columbia-led study that explores the global rise of monogamous marriage as a dominant cultural institution. The study suggests that institutionalized monogamous marriage is rapidly replacing polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems.

"Our goal was to understand why monogamous marriage has become standard in most developed nations in recent centuries, when most recorded cultures have practiced polygyny," says UBC Prof. Joseph Henrich, a cultural anthropologist, referring to the form of polygamy that permits multiple wives, which continues to be practiced in some parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America.

"The emergence of monogamous marriage is also puzzling for some as the very people who most benefit from polygyny -- wealthy, powerful men -- were best positioned to reject it," says Henrich, lead author of the study that was recently published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. "Our findings suggest that that institutionalized monogamous marriage provides greater net benefits for society at large by reducing social problems that are inherent in polygynous societies."

Add this to the list.



(thumbs up)




Obama's contraception/sterilisation mandate will shut down Catholic charities, like The Little Sisters of the Poor's care for the impoverished elderly:

The Little Sisters of the Poor say the HHS contraception and sterilization mandate threatens their continued ministry to the impoverished elderly. They are “strongly objecting” to the federal rule and say it should be repealed as soon as possible.

“Because the Little Sisters of the Poor cannot in conscience directly provide or collaborate in the provision of services that conflict with Church teaching, we find ourselves in the irreconcilable situation of being forced to either stop serving and employing people of all faiths in our ministry – so that we will fall under the narrow exemption – or to stop providing health care coverage to our employees,” the order said on March 1.

“Either path threatens to end our service to the elderly in America. The Little Sisters are fervently praying that this issue will be resolved before we are forced to take concrete action in response to this unjust mandate.”

Their order serves 13,000 needy elderly of all faiths in 31 countries around the world. In the U.S., it has 30 homes for the elderly, accommodating 2,500 low-income seniors.

The Department of Health and Human Services mandate requires employers to provide coverage for “preventive health.” It defines this coverage to include sterilization and contraception, including some abortion-causing drugs. The Obama administration’s proposed compromise would mandate that insurance companies, not employers, provide this coverage.

The mandate’s religious exemption applies only to employers who primarily serve and employ their coreligionists and have the inculcation of religious values as their primary purpose.

The Little Sisters of the Poor said that even the indirect subsidizing of such benefits is “unconscionable to us.” Their longstanding health insurance has always explicitly excluded sterilization, contraception and abortion from covered services and this policy has “never been a matter of controversy in our homes.”

The sisters warned that the successful implementation of the federal rule could set a precedent for “further intrusion of government into health care.”

Speaking of unfairness, soak in the compassion for a remorseful man from the left:

""and in knowing that this decision did not come from me; I would have taken the chance on triplets, even with all the work and effort it would have required."
How nice of him to shoulder that enormous burden. What about the strongly increased danger to life and health of his wife (not to mention the triplets)? If she'd suffered, I'm sure he'd found solace in the knowledge that he was doing god's will. Bastard."

"I agree...he does at least sound like a bit of a "dick". If he was so "hands off" with the selective abortion, I have little doubt he would have also been "hands off" as an active parent of triplets!
As IVF participants, they had to know the risk of mulitples, and this would/should have been discussed before entering into it.
"She made the choice"...sounds like he gets a pass either way."

"Hardly two good Catholics you are talking about here. He moans to his god, but used IVF to get to this point. What were they thinking?

He seems to take great joy in dumping all the guilt on his wife. I agree...bastard."

This is the left. Take a good look. The next time anyone of them tells you how enlightened, reasonable, compassionate or noble they are (and they'll try because they love the sound of their own voices), remember this. They would laugh at a train wreck.



More examples of our "social betters":

To get just a glimpse of the dementia that has crippled the cognitive functioning of what was once the western world’s brave and lively tradition of intellectual dissent, feminist solidarity and progressive internationalism, all you need to do is look in on any one of the dozens of vanity projects being staged across Canada at the moment under the Israeli Apartheid Week marquee.

In Halifax, “radical educator” Evan Coole facilitates a Deconstructing Pink Imperialism workshop to look at television commercials in ways that provide instruction in the avoidance of imagining straight male Muslims as “a collective enemy of queers,” with an emphasis on Israel, which shows up in the brochure as Occupied Palestine. In Toronto, Trish Salah, a professor with something called the Simone de Beauvoir Institute in Montreal, draws the connections between Palestinians, health care for transgendered people and anti-capitalist activism in a reading of poems from her work in progress, titled Lyric Sexology.

At the University of British Columbia, up from Seattle’s Antioch University, Global and Gender Studies professor Nada Elia, formerly of the Anti-Militarism and Anti-Occupation Task Force of the Women of Color Against Violence Steering Collective, but now with the Steering Collective of The Critical Ethnic Studies Association, delivers the Israeli Apartheid Week keynote lecture and elaborates upon what she calls “the currently non-existent academic freedom in the U.S., Israel, and Palestine.”

At the University of Guelph, Professor Michael Keefer, the former chair of the literature grant adjudication committee of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, who says al-Qaida’s mass atrocity of Sept. 11, 2001 was “organized (and subsequently covered up) by civilian and military officials at the highest levels of the Bush regime,” delivers a lecture on the humane, rational and peaceful necessity of Judenstaatrein. In polite academic circles nowadays, it is known as boycotting, divesting from and imposing sanctions upon Israel.

This is the left. You cannot make these things up. It's not just lunacy. Heartlessness (see above), anti-semitism and racism are their calling cards. They are the bullies they want everyone to be afraid.



Why don't we stand up to bullies?



Look- one can either manage an oppressive police state or allow a free market wherein people use their talents and resources to create a thriving and picturesque community. They can't do both.



(another thumbs up)



And now, an historical cat for Caturday.

What’s Your Favourite Apartheid Week?

Israel Apartheid Week is a favourite among the university going masses whose formative years were spent recycling pop cans and plastic bottles or else Mother Earth would cry but in this rush to hate Israel, have we forgotten other just as pertinent apartheid weeks?

What about North Korea Apartheid Week?

Second is that Kim Il-sung established a security and control system that would have made Joseph Stalin blush. From the “rule of threes” (anyone found to be disloyal in word or deed will have three generations “expunged” — at best all three generations go to the gulag and at worst all three are totally expunged, as in execution) to the establishment of a personal loyalty system — i.e., you get promoted or get ahead or are simply allowed to exist by demonstrating personal loyalty to the regime and not by merit — means that there is a system of control that is totally focused on protecting the regime from rebellion. This personal loyalty system has the added benefit of preventing coups because anyone who says a word against the regime must be reported both by regulation but also because by reporting it one further demonstrates one’s loyalty to the regime and allows that person to “get ahead.”

***

The US-based Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (CHRNK) said the women were kept in short-term detention camps where they are either given abortions or their babies are killed at birth .  ....

One woman told of being forced to assist injection-induced labours and then watching as a baby was suffocated with a wet towel in front of its mother.

Many former prisoners told of babies buried alive or left face down on the ground to die.

They were told by guards this was to prevent the survival of half-Chinese babies.

Iran Apartheid Week?

There are plenty of references regarding the ICC as not representative of Iranian immigrants to Canada and of its ties to the Iranian Regime. In fact, the ICC has called for more Iranian consulates because so many Iranians need visas to travel back to a Theocracy which kills homosexuals, violently represses its citizens on a scale only surpassed by North Korea, and threatens Israel and western nations on a regular basis.

What about Celebrity Apartheid Week?

Shouldn't these countries and groups be held to account for their actions?

(avec thanks and such)

 

Some Stuff

Is Barack Hussein Obama, the Chosen One, a racist?


Apparently:






In Heaven, Andrew Breitbart is laughing so hard he has to sit down on a cloud. He promised he would vet Obama and by the reaction of the Obama apologists, he has. Obama was willing to legitimise the mad theocratic state of Iran, legalise infanticide, alienate Canada with his "Buy American" policy (and now the Keystone pipeline) and was inexperienced to boot, his four years of incompetence and back-patting can't hide his connections to Bill Ayers and Derrick Bell. If scores of "journalists" can crawl up Sarah Palin's skirt and trot out Rick Santorum's dead son, we have to ask ourselves why the lame-duck-in-chief was not so scrutinised.



Women are only sluts when in front of a congressional committee spearheaded by Nancy Pelosi. Otherwise, they are upstanding citizens who are victims of society and must have others pay for their birth control:

The political reaction to “slut” was opportunistic, of course, but it worked with a lot of women because — apparently, even in this age of sexual liberation and “slut pride” — women are still somehow deeply affected by charges of wanton and undiscriminating sexual behavior. This might even account for the importance of the contraceptive issue, because mandated contraceptive coverage may be seen as representing not just a modest monetary benefit, but also perhaps some sort of societal validation. I would have thought that a strong independent woman wouldn’t need a stamp of societal approval for her choices, but apparently I would have been wrong. I leave it to the evolutionary-psych folks to work out why the “slut” charge retains such power in liberated times.

Apparently, however, it is especially wrong to “slut-shame” even though lefties feel no compunction about shaming people regarding other personal choices — from not recycling to owning an SUV to, worst of all, being a Republican. As I say, there’s something more going on here. And if the “shaming” part of slut-shaming isn’t bad, because shaming is fine in other contexts, then it must be the “slut” part.

Father Hollowell reminds everyone that the Catholic Church isn't the United Church and it isn't going to bend.



Related: the Obama administration is vindictive and pathetic:

The Vatican has for the first time appeared on the State Department’s list of money-laundering centers but the tiny city-state is not rated as a high-risk country. The 2012 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report was made public on Wednesday and Washington’s list of 190 countries classifies them in three categories: of primary concern, of concern and monitored…

(With plenty of thanks)




Boko Haram vows to kidnap Christian women in Nigeria:

A Nigeria spokesman for the Islamist militant group Boko Haram told Bikyamasr.com on Tuesday afternoon that the group has plans to begin kidnapping Christian women in a push to “liquidate” the religious group from the country.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the spokesman said that “we are going to put into action new efforts to strike fear into the Christians of the power of Islam by kidnapping their women.”

And people say there is no war on Christians. 
 


Even dead, Christopher Hitchens makes more sense than living atheists who clearly don't get how great the West (and its foundations) is.



And now, warp travel may not be a possibility:

Scientists at the University of Sydney have done the math, and believe that the fictional warp drive could break our entire universe.

During the warp process, it's believed that a number of highly energetic atomic particles would get caught up while warping and displaced immediately following the warp. The energy contained by those particles would be enough to absolutely obliterate anyone at the destination point. Or anyone near the destination. Or anyone who's even heard of the destination.

We never saw that on Star Trek!