Tuesday, March 31, 2015

When Obama's Iran Gets the Nuke

Iran militia chief: Destroying Israel is ‘nonnegotiable’
Basij commander Mohammad Reza Naqdi also threatens Saudis, saying their fate will be like that of Saddam Hussein

"The commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable,” according to an Israel Radio report Tuesday.

Militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi also threatened Saudi Arabia, saying that the offensive it is leading in Yemen “will have a fate like the fate of Saddam Hussein.”

Naqdi’s comments were made public as Iran and six world powers prepared Tuesday to issue a general statement agreeing to continue nuclear negotiations in a new phase aimed at reaching a comprehensive accord by the end of June.

In 2014, Naqdi said Iran was stepping up efforts to arm West Bank Palestinians for battle against Israel, adding the move would lead to Israel’s annihilation, Iran’s Fars news agency reported.

“Arming the West Bank has started and weapons will be supplied to the people of this region,” Naqdi said.

“The Zionists should know that the next war won’t be confined to the present borders and the Mujahedeen will push them back,” he added. Naqdi claimed that much of Hamas’s arsenal, training and technical knowhow in the summer conflict with Israel was supplied by Iran.

The Basij is a religious volunteer force established in 1979 by the country’s revolutionary leaders, and has served as a moral police and to suppress dissent.

Tweet of the Day

Via instapundit:
"Greg Pollowitz:
Summary: Dems more in favor of sanctions on Indiana than Iran"

When Truth Becomes Heresy

It is now heresy to call a rape-hoax what it is: a rape-hoax. Two articles on Jackie and the UVA hoax against an entire fraternity system.
The UVA Case and Rape-Hoax Denial

Why the Rolling Stone gang-rape story will never be labeled a hoax
Truth is anathema to these people. That's why we must use it, constantly and loud.
"But when truth becomes heresy, the pendulum has swung too far, with disastrous consequences for civil rights and basic justice."
Cathy Young
HT: Instapundit

Monday, March 30, 2015

The National Black Church Initiative Breaks Free From Runaway Presbyterians

NBCI's 34,000 Black Churches Breaks Fellowship with Presbyterian Church (USA) Urges African American Protestant Denominations to Sever Ties

"The Presbyterian Church (USA) is preaching Another Gospel

Contact: Rev. Anthony Evans, National Black Church Initiative, 202-744-0184, dcbci2002@gmail.com

WASHINGTON, March 27, 2015 /Christian Newswire/ -- The National Black Church Initiative (NBCI), a faith-based coalition of 34,000 churches comprised of 15 denominations and 15.7 million African Americans has broken its fellowship with Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) following its recent vote to approve same-sex marriage.

The Presbyterian General Assembly, the top legislative body of the PSUSA, voted last June to revise the constitutional language defining marriage. This arbitrary change of Holy Scripture is a flagrantly pretentious and illegitimate maneuver by a body that has no authority whatsoever to alter holy text.

Rev. Anthony Evans, NBCI President noted "NBCI and its membership base are simply standing on the Word of God within the mind of Christ. We urge our brother and sisters of the PCUSA to repent and be restored to fellowship."

PCUSA's manipulation represents a universal sin against the entire church and its members. With this action, PCUSA can no longer base its teachings on 2,000 years of Christian scripture and tradition, and call itself a Christian entity in the body of Christ. It has forsaken its right by this single wrong act.

Apostle Paul warns us about this when he declared in Galatians 1:8 that there are those who will preach another Gospel.
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him…For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
No church has the right to change the Word of God. By voting to redefine marriage PCUSA automatically forfeits Christ's saving grace. There is always redemption in the body of Christ through confession of faith and adhering to Holy Scripture. In this case, PCUSA deliberately voted to change the Word of God and the interpretation of holy marriage between one man and one woman. This is why we must break fellowship with them and urge the entire Christendom to do so as well.

About NBCI
The National Black Church Initiative (NBCI) is a coalition of 34,000 African American and Latino churches working to eradicate racial disparities in healthcare, technology, education, housing, and the environment. NBCI's mission is to provide critical wellness information to all of its members, congregants, churches and the public. Our methodology is utilizing faith and sound health science.

NBCI's purpose is to partner with major organizations and officials whose main mission is to reduce racial disparities in the variety of areas cited above. NBCI offers faith-based, out-of-the-box and cutting edge solutions to stubborn economic and social issues. NBCI's programs are governed by credible statistical analysis, science based strategies and techniques, and methods that work. Visit our website at www.naltblackchurch.com.
Mainline ecclesiastics are desperate to staunch the bleeding of membership, and are being taken over by cultural standards which replace Christian standards. It won't work because culturally oriented people don't need an untethered church when they already have an untethered culture which caters to them. Around here denominationally-unaligned churches are flourishing while the mainline pseudo-cathedral churches are nearly empty. Either a religious system has values or it is not a source of character growth and support; it is a front for Atheism.

ZoNation: I Am A New Fan

I had not looked into ZoNation before now; that's my loss. I'll rectify that.

When I say these same things I get charged with racism. But they are precisely true. I'm pleased that there is such a forceful voice which cannot be charged with racism and which can so emphatically say what is true. The Left uses race (and other class warfare) by keeping entire demographics dependendent, rather than promoting them to be independent, strong, and individuals under their own power and control. And they have had four generations which they have indoctrinated as being their friend, when in reality they are the same old racist, masters and elitists that they have always been, ever since the infancy of the nation.

I'm not sure that Republicans - once the liberators of blacks, and the bestowers of their Civil Rights Acts - are any longer viable as actual friends of suppressed blacks. "Civil Rights" has backfired into welfare dependency, degrading affirmative action, and political correctness which has destroyed education. There needs to be a new civil right attached to personal development of character, intellect, and moral choice. But how could that ever happen?

Only through voices like AlfonZo's - and louder - could it ever produce results.

BTW, I still recommend this book.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

The Breitbart/Bast Rules For Anti-Radical Counter Warfare

From Steve Milloy:
"1. Don’t be afraid to go into enemy territory. Our most articulate voices, likable faces, and best idea-makers need to go into hostile territory and plant the seeds of doubt in our ideological enemy and the apolitical masses who simply go where the media flows. Don’t just preach to the choir. Invade their space, get their attention, make them report what you say.

2. Expose the left for who they are – in their own words. It’s easy to label the left, to analyze them, to take them apart using your rationality….What’s much harder than understanding the left is exposing it. Come with real evidence …. quotations with names and dates, print-outs from Web sites. Push it across the table and say “on March 15 you compared gun owners to Nazis. Do you deny that?”

3. The key to success of the New Media is making news by breaking news. What people want to hear, what is important in an information-saturated world, is not research or commentary or opinion or reaction, but news. Get there first and report what you see, don’t comment on what other people say or think. Your ideas and opinions are not news. Never start with “I think” or “I happen to believe.”

4. Be open about the secrets and sins of yourself and your spokespersons. Once it’s out there, there isn’t much the left can do with it – you already admitted it. Say “that’s not news” and move on. See Rule #3: “That’s not news, so why are you still talking about it?” When confronted with your own past mistakes, embrace them. Don’t talk about how you regret them, don’t apologize, don’t explain. Say you lived through them and they made you who you are today. Embracing your mistakes makes you invulnerable to their slings.

5. Accuse the other side of hypocrisy. Use the words: “You are so hypocritical… you are a hypocrite.” The right is cited with it all the time because we actually have standards, they know it, and part of their Alinsky playbook is to try to embarrass us by holding us to our own standards. Everything bad they accuse us of doing, they are doing themselves. They lie, exaggerate, cherry-pick, live indulgent and wasteful lives, throw allies under the bus (e.g., native Americans, the poor, endangered species), etc. Hypocrisy appeals directly to the emotional heart of politics: one standard for you, another for me.

6. Don’t let the other side characterize you or shape the narrative. Object to labels and force them to report/register your objection. It’s not big business against the environment or the little guy, it’s the little guy against Big Environment, Big Labor, Big Government. If you refuse to buy into their lexicon, if you refuse to back down in the face of those intimidation tactics, they can’t harm you.

7. Express righteous indignation. Don’t just call them out, express your own outrage at being falsely accused. Point out that what they’re doing is pure Alinsky and that it has no basis in fact or reality. For example, say they’re showing themselves to be racists in their own right by citing race every time they meet someone with whom they disagree.

8. Dismiss phony accusations and labels out of hand as being ridiculous, then immediately go on the offense. Don’t start by defending yourself against baseless charges, dismiss them out of hand as ridiculous. Say he is a punk for leveling that kind of charge without any basis whatsoever. Demand that they back up their charges with specifics, and when they can’t, counter-charge them with hypocrisy (see Rule #5).

9. Control your story by serializing it. Think ahead to the next step of the argument, the debate, the longer-term strategy. View the current encounter as just one step, anticipate their response and plan your next step. Serialization is one way to do this: Van Jones was taken down by Glenn Beck because Beck had the goods – and because he revealed them piece by piece. He got them to come out of the closet and attack him. then he calmly laid his cards on the table, one by one.

10. Feed the media, starve your critics. Feeding the media is like training a dog – you can’t throw an entire steak at a dog to train it to sit. You have to give it little bits of steak over and over and over again until it learns its lesson. Meanwhile, give your critics nothing so they have nothing to report . Give them nothing to report (Rule #3), anticipate their response and force them to react to your story over and over again (Rule #9).

11. Ubiquity is key. When the MSM is ignoring you, develop relationships with like0-minded allies or even enemies and news junkies and allow them to share in the good fortune of a good scoop. Ubiquity is about growing the pie for everyone, spreading the stories, the channels of distribution, the resources around so that the entire movement can benefit, because our chunk of the public square gets bigger and bigger each time we break something huge.

12. Engage in the social media. Building a movement used to take time, but now it can be done in a few hours with the right connections and the right posts on the right websites. Use Facebook and Twitter and texting.

13. Don’t pretend to know more than you do. It feeds our ego and, we think, plays to our strength, but nobody can be an expert on everything, and nobody likes the guy who thinks he is but then flubs answers to seemingly simple questions. Instead of playing the know-it all, play Socrates, asking pointed questions rather than citing facts we may not be sure of.

14. Only accept media invites where you control the terms of engagement. Be generous with your time with friendly reporters, bloggers, and allies. In contrast, don’t agree to long interviews with hostile reporters which result in only a couple sentences taken out of context in a hit-piece published a week later. Insist of being interviewed live on television shows, know who the other guests are in advance so you can prepare, insist that the topic be something you want to discuss and are prepared to discuss and not “open-ended” or “to be decided.”

#15. Don’t let them pretend to know more than they do. The other guys will pretend to know more than they do, and because they seldom stray outside their friendly media zones they will not be prepared for demands that they prove their claims or the presentation of counter facts. You can always puncture their balloon with one word: why. Asking them to provide evidence for their assertions is always fun, and it’s even more fun asking them to provide the sources for that evidence. Reason is not their strong suit, emotion is. Force them to play on the football field of reason.

#16. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. This is one of Alinksy’s rules, and he’s right. Memorable put downs of our opponents and their ideas can stick to them for a long time and damage their credibility. Create an unfavorable image that people can retrieve whenever a name (Al Gore) or idea (global warming, gun control) is mentioned. Images that are funny last the longest.

#17. Don’t let them get away with ignoring their own rules. This is another Alinsky rule: point out how their position contradicts some other position they hold, make them explain how killing barred owls to protect northern spotted owls helps the environment, how windmills that kill golden eagles and bats are good for the environment, why Indians are not allowed to use fracking on their own lands.

#18. Truth isn’t mean. It’s the truth. Don’t be afraid to say we are for the truth. “We’re not here to try to sell you anything. We’re just devoted to finding the truth.” Contrast the truth with “spin” and “political agendas.” The left is too deep into subjectivism and post-modern deconstructionism to believe the “truth” exists, so they will stumble and stutter when confronted with someone who naively believes it does. In a public debate, where most people do believe there is objective truth, saying you’re on the side of truth is good.

#19. Believe in the audacity of hope. Optimists win debates and elections and sell the most books. Do not be the guy on the panel who is dour, frowning, and the source of bad news. Be the guy who is smiling, looking up and around, laughing at everyone’s jokes, and eager to comment. Say “apathy is suicide” and “every problem has a solution, and the benefits of solving really big problems are huge.” Say we are winning… the debate, public support, the future. People like
winners, they look for horses to which to hook their wagons. Be that horse. Compete to pull the audience’s wagons. "
There's some slight discontinuity betweeen 1, 5, and 7. And I don't like 16. Mostly, though, the message is boldness, truth and persistence in the face of the enemy, and they ARE the enemy of both truth and freedom.

Light Your World On Fire

Personal Flamethrower Might Get Crowdfunding Approval
Violate the Geneva Conventions in your own backyard!

"The XM42, a personal flamethrower now soliciting funding on IndieGoGo, is a very specific answer to a very foolish question: Could more of the world be on fire--and should it be? This device answers that question with a jet of burning fuel."

These would be a great addition to your local riot...

Yes! As It SHOULD Be Done... "We Are Not Ferguson!"

East Knoxville residents back ‘Officer G'
Former NAACP president: 'We are not Ferguson'

"A crowd gathered as Knoxville Police Department Lt. Gordon Gwathney struggled with the screaming black woman in the public housing development.

Gwathney already had shot his stun gun at the 5-foot-2-inch tall woman, but her crack cocaine high made her impervious to the electric jolt designed to freeze the muscles of large men. She ripped the metal wires from her body and continued to fight.

As he tussled with the 110-pound woman, the crowd of onlookers in Walter P. Taylor Homes swelled. Gwathney’s radio was ripped from his uniform as he forced the woman to the ground, so calling for help as the crowd closed in around him was not an option.

As he fought to get handcuffs on the squirming woman, two people from the crowd jumped into the fray.

“I saw something I thought I’d never see — people come to the aid of an officer,” Dewey Roberts, former president of Knoxville NAACP, told a community group last week. “They were telling her to calm down and they got his radio that had been knocked loose.”

Roberts witnessed the event through a window at the Dr. Lee Williams Complex, a senior citizens center he oversees in Walter P. Taylor Homes. Roberts had seen the confrontation develop despite Gwathney “trying to de-escalate the situation” and worried as he saw the crowd of black onlookers encircle the lone officer.

“With my experiences with police over the years, I was just amazed,” said the 69-year-old Roberts who led Knoxville’s black community through the racial tinderbox in the late 1990s when several black men died during confrontations with Knoxville officers.

“And it wasn’t just a few people, it was the whole crowd. I was shaking my head in disbelief, but it was a good feeling.”

Gwathney, an 18-year veteran of the Knoxville Police Department, said the woman bit two of the residents who came to his aid. The 28-year-old woman, he said, was wanted on 10 outstanding warrants and had been ordered to stay out of Walter P. Taylor homes.

The gathering crowd was a reassurance and not a threat for him. These are his people. He knows their names. He goes to their children’s graduations.

To residents of East Knoxville, Gwathney is “Officer G.”

He treats us like people; he knows our names,” said Linda Conner, a resident of Walter P. Taylor Homes whose two adult children benefited from Gwathney’s influence.

“One kind of got off on the wrong foot and he picked her up in the ninth grade and started to mentor her,” the 49-year-Conner said. “He came to her graduation.”

“Other officers come through and they’re going to run. Officer G comes through and he gets out and talks to people.

“Because they wear their pants low, Officer G knows that doesn’t mean you’re a drug dealer or criminal. We know and respect him. He’s a blessing out here.”

Gwathney has spent 12 of his 18 years in Knoxville’s housing projects. His Seymour upbringing suits him better in East Knoxville.

“I worked West Knoxville, but I like this better; I fit in better,” he said.

It wasn’t always like this for Gwathney. When he joined the force, Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe was trying to ease racial tensions twisted to the point officers were alerted to threats that snipers on rooftops would pick them off the street. Ashe in 1998 created the Police Advisory Review Committee to oversee investigations of alleged police misconduct in the black community.

“When I first came on, there’s no way I would walk through Walter P. by myself,” he said of the majority black development. “Now, I can do that at 3 a.m.”

Roberts recalls getting “10-15 calls a week about harassment by KPD” during his two decades leading the Knoxville NAACP.

Police have changed the trend with their training, and training is everything,” Roberts said.

David Rausch, who this week celebrates his fourth year as chief of the Police Department, agreed training officers on diversity, treating people with respect, creating walking patrols and attending community meetings has dissolved boundaries and created relationships.

Rausch said police training employs “procedural justice where we listen to people and not go into a situation with your mind made up, so people know they are being heard.”

“They no longer see us as an occupying force,” the chief said. “We’re seeing a huge decrease in complaints, a decrease in resistance responses and an increase in compliments.”

Roberts, however, cautions how fragile the nascent trust between police and minorities can be.

“You can never rest because it only takes one incident to ignite the passion we’ve seen before. But our mayor and police chief are ready to de-escalate any situation.

“We are not Ferguson.”

[Emphasis Added]

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Documenting the Atheist VOID and Its Consequences

A Look At The Classic Acquisition of the Atheist Void
“After just a few lectures my professors effectively proved my whole life a lie. They tore down my very carefully constructed ideals about Faith, God and everything else with their knowledge, reasoning and crystal clear logic. Try as I might, I couldn’t help but start questioning every single notion about, in my own personal case, the Christian Faith. I questioned every single thing I ever learnt in Sunday school, everything my parents taught me. Essentially everything I had ever known up until that point in life. I was beyond saving. No measure of bible verse reading, praying or church going could ever possibly duct-tape together the tiny cracks I started seeing appear and growing larger in my Faith.”

“And these are the things no one ever tells you about atheism. It is hell.”
The reason that it would be hell is that this person was deconstructed, he was NOT taught to think. Thinking would require objective questioning which is addressed with disciplined deductions which are based in grounds which are self-evident, even to Atheist “philosophers”. Even though logic and self-evidence are known to Atheist philosophers, they do not use those in determining their worldviews, nor in indoctrination of naïve students. They use fallacy-ridden demolition of ecclesiastic positions, much of which is imaginary, cartoons which are not, in fact, theism. They invoke Scientism; they invoke Philosophical Materialism; they invoke the hatred of authority and the freedom of rebellion, even random rebellion against history of humanity and thought, except for Atheist ideology.
“My friends and family were quick to tell me that I’m simply not believing hard enough, or that God is testing my belief in him. But what kind of a capricious God picks out one of his so-called children at random and decides to test them whether or not they actually love him? That answered all my doubts: Christianity was not a place I wanted to be. And I paid dearly for that.”
Here his rebellion gells against an external authority based on his dislike of what he projects onto the authority. I will not put up with that, followed by, It must be irrational since I don’t like it.
“Atheists are too often advertised as sinful people, people who can’t be bothered enough about religion to try, or are too lazy to subscribe to a set of rules and a belief system. What this advertisement does not show is the constant doubt every single person of non-belief secretly harbors."
Two more naïve failures here. First, Atheists are not classified in that manner; they are thought to have fully rejected external authority in order to gain the total freedom and anarchy of behaviors and thought which Atheism promises – and delivers. It is not the case that “every single person” experiences the doubt of Atheism. My experience with Atheists suggests the contrary: Atheists are arrogantly certain of their position as the most elite existence in the multiverse. And that leads to their opinion that they should dominate the weak-minded herd, and it is the source of the Class War which is the current culture war in western nations of today.
“It may not be blatantly obvious, but it is always lingering. This doubt does not stem from whether or not we should believe, we know the answer to that already. This doubt stems from the question: so what now?”
That’s a different twist, and yet still rings false. When Atheists leave the Atheist VOID, it's overwhelmingly in the direction of the Left, as Messiah Class culture warriors. That’s “what now”.
“Deciding to become an atheist throws you into an epic existential storm, because you are quite unceremoniously ripped from your whole belief and value system. You come to live your life in a certain way, so as to subscribe to the norms and demands of your Faith, but when that disappears, you no longer have some imaginary fairy in the sky telling you how to live, you need to do that for yourself.

This was at once the single-most terrifying and liberating experience I have ever had. But I got to rebuild my life and value system in a way that seemed honest and true to me and only me, not the priest, not my parents, not the fairy in the sky, only me. Selfish? Perhaps. Satisfying? Fuck yes.“
This is a classic Atheist’s description of having entered the Atheist VOID, and then exited the VOID by creating his very own, personal value system that seemed “true to him”. That can be interpreted to mean creating a system which is “congruent with my personal taste in behaviors” for application to myself until I change them. THAT is freedom.
“So do it. Come over to the grey side if you feel like it. If you don’t, that’s cool too, but please do not ever feel like this should be base don anyone’s feelings other than your own.”
Make up your own rules, it’s liberating and wonderful not to have actual external constraints on behaviors or thoughts: just do it your own way; personal anarchy is freeing.
“Stop listening to the believers, who are secretly just jealous of all the non-marital sex and bacon anyway.”
This is one of the most stupid statements… ever.
“Stop listening to the non-believer radicals, they are bound to make you bitter and sad. Listen to yourself.”
Absolutely: the Atheist dogma. Listen only to yourself. You become supreme, with unlimited access to truth because you are supreme. That’s how being supreme works. Above all, ignore all theist arguments, they'll just confuse you and annoy you. Supreme beings don't need that.
“Believe what you believe.”
Another candidate for most stupid statement ever.
“In a World full of Faith debates and debacles, this is the only thing that matters.”
And still another candidate. This author is a veritable gold mine of such candidates.

That’s the intellectual and moral result of the Atheist VOID: free to believe any thought you might have, without self awareness or critical logical analysis. Completely free. Believe what you believe, because that's what is true to you.

I thank the author for documenting this passage through the rabbit hole called the Atheist VOID.

John Moore: In Serious Denial, Or...

....possibly John Moore lives in a cave... really far back in.
John Moore: The new atheist just doesn’t care

“If we do have issues with religion it stems from the fact that an awful lot of conflict and abuse in the world seems to be rooted in faith and sectarianism. We’re weary of head-shaving, penis-snipping, knife-carrying, face-covering, genital-mutilating, gay-shaming and pork-evading; practices sacred to some, superstitious to the rest. We’re at odds with the notion that because you are born to a certain set of parents you must refuse blood or chemotherapy, eschew technology, shame women, dispute evolution, hit yourself in the head with swords or shake sticks out of cans.”
Atheists and Atheism have been at the root of the violent deaths, eugenic mass murder, and violent cultural eradications which include orders of magnitude more humans than all religions combined, and they are still at it. Atheist denial of this demonstrates their intellectual dishonesty; it can't be ignorance, but it could be a mental disorder. But it remains a common justification attempt regardless of its falseness and regardless of the ease with which the truth can be demonstrated in order to destroy it as a useful argument in favor of Atheism. The inversion is a clue to the mental processes of the the person who invokes such a position.

The remainder of this list of infractions against Atheism is childish by comparison to the Atheist assaults on mankind. The ignorance of this seems egregious especially in the arena of evolution worship, when Darwinian evolutionary theory has collapsed internally at the hands of evolutionists, five years ago. But evolution invokers are universally worshippers, not science lovers, and Moore is no different.

"Eschew technology"? Does he think theists are all Quakers? What sort of argument is he making?

He actually is not making an argument. He is listing stuff that arouses his ire, while trying to convince us that there is no Atheist ire any more.
“We’re also dubious about the argument that religion makes one better. I know it makes some people better but the absence of faith is not some kind of character deficit. Indeed to insist as Black does that “without God, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are just pallid formulations of like and dislike” is to argue that humans are too stupid to know that it’s wrong to kill or steal. It’s even arguable that there is greater character to living a moral life in the absence of the promise of divine reward or retribution. And certainly when people kill while shouting “God is great” it calls into question the moralizing force of faith.”
And nowhere in that paragraph do we find actual Atheist moral principles. What we find is actually false: entire Atheist cultures are controlled by killing and torture and limiting education: there is specific evidence of Atheist lack of character in the history of Atheist cultures.

Next he makes the very common error of conflating fear of breaking laws, and moral principles for behaviors. And then we find the standard use of Islam to define the generic term “religious belief”, the Fallacies of False Association and Equivocation.

Finally, he resorts to the argument that theists are moral purely out of terror of their own deity, an argument designed to impugn rather than to understand any theist arguments or positions. I.e., he has produced only caricatures and cartoons set up as straw men – the cheapest form of rhetorical fallacy.

“Black writes that intellectual Christians become more convinced of God’s existence with each remarkable new discovery of our universe’s sophisticated interconnectedness. The reverse applies for non believers. I recently learned there is a leukemia unique to children with Down’s Syndrome. Where is the divine hand in that?”
The old “God is Evil” argument (or rather whiny complaint), so easily disposed of, yet used so stultifyingly often by the uneducated Atheist. One might expect the FSM meme to pop up next. But he skips that and goes for the ridiculous:
"In religion, politics and lifestyle it never seems enough to hold fast to what you believe; your world view must also be under vicious attack from rivals and bullies. I’m sure there are plenty of yobs and provocateurs who poke at the faithful like mosquitoes, but the age of the “angry atheist” is past."
After listing all the stuff that pisses him off about theism, he claims angry Atheism to be past and sees no internal contradiction in what he has written. Yet he has produced a compilation of accusations which could have come from Dawkins, and with a similar degree of intellectual non-rigor and ill-concealed rage and arrogance. He presumes that there is no refutation to any of his "issues", and presents them as axiomatic premises for his presumptive conclusion, a conclusion which doesn't follow from the angry and arrogant list he produces.

And he doesn’t even seem to comprehend that the attacks by the FFRF, the homosexual/LGBTQSBFGSHRBSDFGRRSFGRGBPNBOV lobby, the Humanist associations, not to mention the SPLC, the DNC, and at least one third of the US Government are ongoing and hate-filled, conquest-minded, intolerant, tyrannical attacks on individual religious persons and small private businesses with the intent of destroying them unless they obey Atheist rules. (They lose their attacks on large businesses with the resources to fight back, even to the Supreme Court). They do stop just short of beheading, but the angry Atheist philosophy is the very same totalitarianism as that of Islam: obey or be destroyed - that is the definition of tolerance. The age of the angry Atheist is raging full bore and even at the level of government attacking dissenting theists every day.

This author is either blissfully ignorant or he is a blatant liar. There is no in between possibility.

Friday, March 27, 2015

US Sen. Gillibrand's War On Men: RadFem In The Senate

Kirsten Gillibrand: Don’t Blame The Victim Of A Rape That Never Happened For Reporting A Rape That Never Happened

"Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has a history of calling people rapists without any proof. If she hears a rape accusation, she assumes it’s true. She skips niceties like “allegedly.” The way she sees it: If the accused isn’t guilty, why does he stand accused? Due process is for ladies only.

She’s not about to stop now, even after the UVA gang-rape case has been revealed as an utter hoax. Joseph Spector, Journal News:
'Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who is pushing for stronger laws against rapes on college campuses, today warned against people criticizing the woman at the center of a University of Virginia sexual assault case…

“Victim blaming or shining the spotlight on her for coming forward is not the right approach,” Gillibrand said on “The Capitol Pressroom,” a public radio show in Albany. “In fact, what we have to focus on is how do we keep these campuses safe? How do we have better trained personnel on campuses so they can tell a survivor what her options are and so they can have all the facts?”

Gillibrand said it would be wrong for some to call on the female student in the UVA scandal to face criminal charges.

“I think it’s inappropriate,” she said.'
Punishing false accusations of rape would only discourage actual rape victims from stepping forward, you see. We must protect women, even if they’re lying. They’re victims because they say so, and we must not be swayed by mere evidence to the contrary.

Those frat bros probably had it coming anyway. If you think those guys are innocent until proven guilty, you hate women. Go ahead, deny it. That just serves as further proof of your misogyny, misogynist."
It's hard to imagine the Left (Democrats) veering any further away from Constitutional human rights, common sense, and even from their stated ideology of "tolerance and equality", both terms of which they have inverted and perverted beyond recognition.

A male student today is in the position which black males were in many decades ago: they are presumed guilty, period. Blacks were frequently hanged; male students have their lives destroyed permanently and without recourse except for counter lawsuits they can ill afford.

Much of this is directly caused by the federal government, which constantly increases its Title IX misconstruals into discrimination in favor of women to the point of severe discrimination against men. It's all part of the Leftist Class War. Women are perpetual Victimhood Category flowers; men are perpetual Oppressor Category rapists. Those classes are being both institutionalized by Title IX, and innoculated into the psyches of young Americans. Class War creates jobs at both the federal level and at the university level; Class War is profitable for the entrenched Leftists and it will be increased before it can be stopped, in part because of entrenchment but also because of their ability to create new constituents through maleducation.

Why Is It Not Treason?

Obama will allow the avowed enemy of the United States to continue to make atomic bombs, in an official agreement.

U.S. Caves to Key Iranian Demands as Nuke Deal Comes Together
Limited options for Congress as Obama seeks to bypass lawmakers

LAUSSANE, Switzerland—The Obama administration is giving in to Iranian demands about the scope of its nuclear program as negotiators work to finalize a framework agreement in the coming days, according to sources familiar with the administration’s position in the negotiations.

U.S. negotiators are said to have given up ground on demands that Iran be forced to disclose the full range of its nuclear activities at the outset of a nuclear deal, a concession experts say would gut the verification the Obama administration has vowed would stand as the crux of a deal with Iran.

Until recently, the Obama administration had maintained that it would guarantee oversight on Tehran’s program well into the future, and that it would take the necessary steps to ensure that oversight would be effective. The issue has now emerged as a key sticking point in the talks.

Concern from sources familiar with U.S. concessions in the talks comes amid reports that Iran could be permitted to continue running nuclear centrifuges at an underground site once suspected of housing illicit activities.
Obama reserves his "principles" for attacks on US allies. For enemies of the west, he is unprincipled. As he is for political enemies within the USA.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Recalling The Days Of Analog Computers

1964 Ad Flashback: When Analog Computers Walked the Earth
When I went through engineering school we had both analog computers and the huge IBM mainframe. We programmed both, the mainframe with decks of cards and results back in 10 days, and analog computers which graphed out results on an xy recorder while you waited.

Analog computers were actually designed real-time by the user, with a different design every time a new set of equations was run. That was because they were a series of operational amplifiers which had feedback loops that determined their mathematical output function and these were hooked together in a manner for simulation of the solution of the equations for a specific input. For a differential equation (not really available on the mainframe), you could integrate and differentiate depending on where you inserted the capacitor. It was very cool and it was very techie for the times.

Excerpts From An Interesting Essay

Political Correctness Is Devouring Itself
I never thought that actually saying all of this would ever be necessary. Apparently government schools and universities are stocked with people who got no education themselves, but are now "educating" for a living... which translated means cranking out adults who are perpetual juveniles, emotionally confused and fragile as grandma's tea cups.
"Go into the modern university and you won’t hear much about Mill or Milton or the millions around the world who have had to learn the hard way why freedom of speech matters. Instead, you will be fed philosophers far less rigorous than Feinberg. The New Zealander Jeremy Waldron, an Oxford professor from the American university system, which churns out authoritarian philosophers the way Ford churns out cars, suggests speech that attacks the dignity of others should be banned. Stanley Fish of New York dispenses with any pretence that we should respect universal human rights, and descends into power-worship and thuggery. “The only way to fight hate speech is to recognise it as the speech of your enemy,” he says. “And what you do in response to the speech of your enemy is not prescribe a medication for it but attempt to stamp it out.” Take a breath and think about his assumptions. This is the tyrannical language of an illiberal intelligentsia so lost in complacency it thinks it no longer needs the rights it once championed.We don’t care if we are being consistent, it says. We have the power to censor now and we will use it.

Few contemporary theorists grasp that people oppose censorship not because they respect the words of the speaker but because they fear the power of the censor. It is astonishing that professed liberals, of all people, could have torn up the old limits, when they couldn’t answer the obvious next question: who decides what is offensive?


In Britain the state is showing that real power does not and has never been in the hands of over-confident intellectuals. It is telling academics to report on campus Islamists, even when they are not engaged in violence. “Thank you very much,” the politicians seem to be saying to the illiberal philosophers, the organisers of blacklists, and the intellectuals who dismissed free speech as an illusion. “If you say you can ban speakers even though they are not provoking violence, we can demand that you spy on Islamist students, even though they are not violent either.”

All of a sudden and with a blackly comic haste, British academics are scrambling to rediscover the virtue of freedom of speech, a liberty they spent a generation denigrating. All of a sudden. And much too late.

No, no, no, the liberals protest. We never wanted to spy and censor on behalf of the powerful, but on behalf of the powerless. But again how are they to judge the loss of dignity that can justify criminal penalties? Perhaps the vehemence of the offence taken is the decisive factor. Maybe if the offended can prove that they are shocked beyond measure, they would provide legitimate grounds to censor. If so, we must give in to Islamists, who feel the hurt of blasphemy so keenly they will murder anyone they deem to have blasphemed. Many have given in and bowed to a blasphemy code enforced at gunpoint. If they were being consistent, they would have to back down if Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Scientologists, Satanists and atheists followed suit and started murdering the authors of unpleasant depictions of their beliefs. If conservatives could prove that the discussion of left-wing ideas incited pain, or left-wingers could say the same about right-wing ideas, they would presumably have to take the logical step of deciding that political argument was offensive too.

Identity politics and the demands for freedom from offence it breeds create a Hobbesian world where everyone can demand the censorship of everyone else. There is no better proof of this than the fate of the politically correct themselves.

Strip away the appearance of a solid ideology, and you see the contradications. The tendency of the modern liberal-left to excuse radical Islam is supported by the politically correct belief that liberals should support a religion of the disadvantaged. In the name of liberalism, they fail to fight a creed that is sexist, racist, homophobic and, in its extreme forms, genocidal and totalitarian. Their political correctness has turned their principles inside out, and led them to abandon their beliefs in female and homosexual equality.

But the difficulties in pretending there are no conflicts between groups are as nothing compared to the pretence that there are no conflicts within them. Michael Ezra, a friend who is researching the growth of the illiberal intelligentsia, says that he is constantly reminded of Trotsky’s warning about the Bolshevik party’s claim that it represented the working class. A rapid descent follows, Trotsky said: “The organisation of the party substitutes itself for the party as a whole; then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the organisation; and finally the ‘dictator’ substitutes himself for the Central Committee.” Or in the case of feminist identity politics the people with the loudest voices substitute themselves for an entire gender.


We have gone from the principle that only speech that incites crime can be banned to the principle that speech that incites gross offence can be banned to the principle that speech that provokes discomfort can be banned. This is not so much a slippery slope as a precipitous drop.

Many want to take the plunge. A few weeks ago, 130 intellectuals wrote to the Observer to make the classic case for freedom of speech. They said that feminists critical of the sex industry and of some demands made by trans activists were being banned because the prevailing consensus was that the mere “presence of anyone said to hold those views is a threat to a protected minority group’s safety. You do not have to agree with the views that are being silenced to find these tactics illiberal and undemocratic.”

Who could possibly object to that, I thought.

Just about everyone, it turned out. Hundreds of other intellectuals replied in the next issue of the Observer. They made the counterfeit claim that being “no-platformed” by student groups was not an attack on free speech. They went on to confuse support for free speech with support for the speaker—the tactic of every grand dictator and little Hitler in history—and implied that standing up for open debate meant the letter’s signatories were indeed “transphobes” and “whorephobes”. Extreme though their reaction was, it was nothing when set against the reaction of online activists.

The indomitable gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell is a hard man to frighten. He has fought homophobic vigilantes and Robert Mugabe’s security guards. But even Tatchell was unnerved by the 4,000 abusive Twitter messages he received for putting his name to the Observer letter. His abusers denounced him as a “homo”, “foreigner”, “misogynist”, “paedophile” and “nutter”. One correspondent informed him that “I would like to tweet about your murder you fucking parasite.” So much for the safety of those who seek to challenge “safe spaces”.


Electoral calculation ought to stop left-wingers allowing conservatives to own the inspiring idea of freedom of speech. If they could only see how they appear to others, they would understand that the people they are trying to convert tend to suspect those who would tell them what to say and how to say it. Many who should be open to radical arguments will turn away because they associate the Left with the silencing of contrary views and the imposition of orthodoxy. Above all, left-wingers need to grasp that speech codes and blacklists do not produce social change but a hypocritical observance of conventional pieties.
If they doubt it, they should look at how the willingness of governments and corporations to make the minor concession of following PC language rules in no way stops them from slashing public services or exploiting workers. They should see what is wrong with a country where you can get away with any amount of cruelty as long as you don’t use “inappropriate” language. If they examine history, they would realise the dangers they face. The first wave of political correctness came in the early 1990s, when the American Left was on its knees after the collapse of the Berlin Wall and triumph of capitalism. So risible was its condition, its chosen candidate for the US presidency was Bill Clinton, a shifty politician of no fixed conviction who had been pretty much been bought by Wall Street. With no possibility of changing the world, campus radicals retreated into themselves and decided to change the university instead.

Now they are in retreat again. Despite the Crash, the Occupy movement has fizzled out, and the American Left’s apparent candidate is Hillary Clinton, a shifty politician of no fixed conviction, who has been pretty much bought by Wall Street. And with today’s retreat come all the 1990s’ problems of speaking in private PC codes, which are as alien to ordinary voters as Nancy Mitford’s U and Non-U English. With the retreat comes the pathetic insistence on reforming language rather than reforming society, and the old seductive delusion that you can censor your way to a better tomorrow.

The rest of the population should worry about the future too. The politicians, bureaucrats, chief police officers and corporate leaders of tomorrow are at universities which teach that free debate and persuasion by argument are ideas so dangerous they must be banned as a threat to health and safety. Unless we challenge them in the most robust manner imaginable, whatever kind of country they grow up to preside over is unlikely to be a free one."

Go to the LINK for the full essay, or just to give the author a hit.

Obama's Cowardly War On Israel: More

US Declassifies Document Revealing Israel's Nuclear Program
In Shocking Breach, U.S. Declassifies Document Revealing Some of Israel's Nuclear Capabilities
Despicable. Purely despicable.

And this:
AP Exclusive: Iran may run centrifuges at fortified site
Beyond Despicable.

Atheism Is Good: Daylight Atheism

Adam Lee at Daylight Atheism claims that Atheism is necessary… for the Good of mankind.
”In fact, I’d go further and say that a politically active, engaged atheist movement is a force for good in the world. The more success it enjoys, the more potential it has to benefit everyone. As such, it deserves our support and advocacy, even when it may stumble or go astray.”
Atheism is not doing a very great job for the Chinese, the Russians, the Cubans, the Venezuelans, etc. Atheism allows any cultural desecration and mass annihilation because it contains no proscriptive moral principles whatsoever. So the first statement here is obviously false, is oblivious to the lack of principles in Atheism, and to the specific documented history of Atheism as a governing morality.
”In what ways is atheism a force for good? There are so many answers to this question. I could write about people suffering nightmarish trauma from their fear of hell, or people with mental illness who are treated with prayer and exorcism instead of medicine. I could write about children in faith-healing sects who suffer and die from curable ailments, or the crushing burden of guilt and shame over sex, or cults that box all their members into a narrow, rigidly defined role in life. Defeating all these pernicious beliefs, and offering an alternative path to people harmed by them, is a positive good.”
"Nightmarish trauma from their fear of hell"? Histrionic much? These issues are dredged largely from the overheated Atheist imagination of their prevalence, and is belied by the lack of their actual prevalence and by the miniscule import which they present as social issues. Plus, most of these are being fought by responsible religious organizations devoted to them, not by Atheists.
”As well, I could say that atheists do good deeds in the world. I could write about atheists who support each other in community, or who’ve given money and time to help the needy. I could even say that atheism contributes to peace around the world. “
Atheists do support each other, until one of them crosses the line and thus becomes a target as a heretical abomination (Antony Flew comes to mind). As for giving anything, Atheists are known to donating the equivalent of two Latte’s per month to charities, and AtheoLeftists are known for not paying their taxes, too. Without principles for morality, behavior becomes just whatever you can get away with.

As for contributing to peace, yes, Atheists have declared war on entire classes of people, wiped them from the face of the earth, and declared peace after their pogroms have suppressed all dissent, with dissenters either dead or in gulags far from reporters and visibility. The Kulaks and other peoples are now "at peace". People making the “Atheist peace” claim have been termed “useful idiots” by real Atheists.
”I could write about all these things, but I won’t. The better answer is more fundamental: because atheism is the acknowledgement of reality, and reality matters.”
Already completely out of touch with documented, historical reality, yet he is claiming “reality” as an exclusive feature of Atheism. No; because for Atheism, reality doesn’t actually matter; the false narrative that it matters is what matters. Because what is emerging in this narrative is the principle of Philosophical Materialism, which cannot be proven under its own principles to be what it claims: the true, limiting principle of reality. The entire rest of reality doesn't matter to Atheists.
”There are many liberal religions that don’t perpetuate the evils I listed. There are believers who’ve built hospitals, who’ve marched for justice, who’ve helped to feed and clothe the poor. I don’t scorn them for their activism. But I do insist that even their ideas, however laudable they may be, are ultimately based on things that are unreal: the promise of another life beyond this one, the idea that prayer and scripture-reading can be used to discover truth, the belief that morality consists of obedience to the decrees of an unseen being.”
And here it is: pure denialism without hope of proof, assumed to be axiomatic and the actual truth without any hope of evidence, logic or empirical testing for confirmation. It is, in fact, a metaphysical position which is not reducible to physical evidence. Because it is presented as Truth, without proof, it is a religiously held blind belief, one that has no basis in reality OR the charge of "unreality".
”Even if taught with the best intentions, these beliefs subtly denigrate reality. They encourage us to focus not on the here-and-now, on the tangible and the real, but on some other realm that’s held up above this life.”
Actually that is exactly what Atheism does. Atheism makes the claim of knowledge, as this author does, that there positively is no existence which is not physical. In its naïve form, as this Atheist produces, reality is solely material, cause and effect (contra Hume), and deterministic. That "reality" is held up above and supreme to the observation that reality contains non-deterministic, untestable, unmeasurable features such as non-deducible existence of consciousness, intellect, qualia, etc., all necessarily derived from minerals deterministically according to Materialist Atheism. Reality which is artificially limited to physical existence cannot explain these, and that is not due to immature science. It is because these things are not causally produced (or they would be merely automatic responses, easily Reproduced), and it is thus because science cannot produce hypothetico-reductive-falsifiable laws which can be validated objectively regarding these effects.
” Even when they call for social action, they promote the belief that evil and suffering are in some sense necessary, part of a greater plan that’s beyond our grasp.”
There is much that is beyond the grasp of the artificially limited comprehension of Atheist ideologists. That doesn’t mean that these esoteria are false. It merely means that they are ideologically constrained from objectively considering them.
” And just when it’s become most crucial that we collectively make the right decisions if humanity is to survive and flourish, they assert that beliefs based on ancient folk tales, wishful thinking, and nebulous personal conviction are just as good as, if not better than, beliefs founded on science, evidence, and reasoned reflection.”
Here it is: the Ad Hominem rejection of non-Atheism using prejudicial pejoratives, followed by the admiring, even worshipful abeyance to Scientism and personal elitist opinion. Both Scientism and subjective opinionation are anti-rational. Especially when they are directed at moral principles under the influence of the moral VOID of Atheism. And it is most egregiously dangerous when it is directed at "humanity", for the GOOD of all the herd.
”The great moral conflicts of the next hundred years must be settled on the basis of what’s true, not just on who believes more fervently.
Whups. This statement directly contradicts the contiguously previous statement. Scientism/Opinion cannot produce anything which is True, especially and particularly regarding morals. So it's EITHER Truth OR Scientism/Opinion. One could ask the Kulaks how it worked out for them, except they were eugenically mass murdered by the Scientific Atheists under Lenin. (For the Good of Humanity, no less). And it actually is not “who believes what more fervently”. Under Atheism it is purely the Will To Power; belief is not an issue.
”Even when we aim at the right ends, letting faith guide our steps will always lead to diverted and wasted effort, will always threaten to trip us up and lead us down blind alleys, and will always breathe life into the very fundamentalisms that pose the threat in the first place.”
Atheists love the word, “fundamentalism”, because they infer from it that there are evil principles involved which keep them from what they really want, and what they want is for everyone else to be exactly like them: government to be Atheist; society to have no rules; tolerance of all behaviors except dissent of course, which is the only evil. So having “fundamental” principles for one’s behavior goes directly counter to the moral anarchy of the Atheist VOID and its children: totalitarian control of the masses, for their equality and their own GOOD. Under Atheist total control it has been demonstrated sufficiently that only the elites actually get the perquisites and the freedom to use them; the Other gets squashed under the “equality” dictated top-down. Those are the consequences of Atheist fundamentalism.
”Most of all, faith keeps us from what’s real.
In a sense, this statement is correct, but not in the manner intended. Faith in Scientism, Materialism, the personal supremacy of the Atheist-elitist mind, these faiths do keep the Atheist from comprehending the fullness of reality. This happens by restricting the concept of reality to the sensorily perceived mechanical superset of universal existence (our visible, touchable physical world), and the restricted ability to hypothesize and deduce outside that ideological, arbitrary limitation. The perceivable universe is now known to be just a subset of what is actual (probably consisting of all quantum waves with no mechanical component at all at the common sublevel). And even at the perceptible level, the ability to apply cause/effect is limited to certain categories of existence.

Atheists probably acknowledge the sub-existence: invisible atoms, subatomic "particles", quantum energies, and so on. But Atheists refuse to acknowledge any higher existence than themselves. And this despite the multi-dimension theories of strings, and the multilevel verification theory of Godel, not to mention the Russell paradox which mathematically demonstrates the inability to have a superset which is the defining truth for all subsets. Atheists are not the top superset, regardless of their beliefs.

The Atheist assertion of what’s “real” and what’s "important" is, to say the least, myopic and self-centered. At worst, it is a deception being practiced upon credulous believers, not unlike what a cult would proclaim as truth to their credulous believers.
The cosmos is beautiful enough as it is, deep enough as it is, glorious enough as it is; we need no small human fantasies to embellish it, nor a dusting of mythology to confer it all with meaning.
And here we have the unsubtle revelation that there is no actual meaning in the Atheist worldview. That then, is the reality which he has been going on about. There is no meaning, so he wants everyone to accept whatever manufactured meaning he applies to their existence. Again, a claim reminiscent of historical Atheist governing principles.
”The real story of how everything came to be and where we fit into the grand picture is more spectacular and awe-inspiring than any religion, and it has the virtue of being true.”
If he is referring to the evolutionary Modern Synthesis of Darwinian principles, then that is known to be not even accepted by the evolutionary elites in the Atheist/Materialist community. That’s fail #1. Not so spectacular, beautiful, or awe inspiring. The second is his declarations of superiority superlatives in order to appear to degrade all non-Atheist beliefs. And again, he mistakes his proclamation to be Truth – or at least he wants the reader to make that mistake.
Embracing reality in all its fullness, unclouded by false hope or illusion, is the most profound of all the gifts that atheism has to offer the world.”
He is actually blinded by the false hope and illusion of his belief in religious Scientism and Philosophical Materialism. And he uses this delusion as support for his claim that Atheism is Good. In all, he has presented no actual material evidence and no deductive logic for his case, and that results in his case being presented as a religious sermon or worse, a set of blind beliefs without basis in actual material fact declared true, despite the failure of the materialism espoused.

The irony of Atheism is that it produces exactly the intellectual tyranny which it claims to be fighting, and there is more than ample historical data to support that knowledge. Yet Atheists persist in producing false testimonies like this, as if there exists no history of Atheist control of societies and science for them even to consider. Whether that is due to ignorance or evil is up to the observer to decide.

In the final analysis: there is NO document containing The Official Atheist Moral Principles; there are no such things Moral Principles which are common to all Atheists, or even most Atheists. And thus there is no Atheist definition for Good or Evil. Therefore, no Atheist can legitimately claim to be Good Without God: that is irrational.

This Atheist article is based on the following premises, which are presented as axiomatic:
1. Materialism is true;

2. Atheism is Good;

3. External Fundamental Principles for behavior are evil;

4. Non-Materialists are delusional.
Each premise is demonstrably false under logical analysis:
1. Materialism is interally non-coherent, being unable to prove its own premises under its own arbitrary limitations.

2. Atheism has no common definition for GOOD; therefore the term is either non-existent for Atheists or is purely relative and unusable.

3. Atheism has no common definition for EVIL; therefore the fundamentals of belief systems cannot be evil. Further, unrestricted behavior under Atheism more closely resembles traditional conceptual EVIL when its historical consequences are considered.

4. Rejection of a non-coherent, unprovable, arbitrary ideological claim is not irrational, it is logical.

Obama Quietly Changed Immigration Law Again This Week

In a move that coincided with the serial weekly meetings with Google, Obama unilaterally is changing L1B immigration rules to favor the immigration of foreign workers into US Corporations.
Did you know Obama just took new executive action on immigration?
Congress and the Supreme Court might as well be disbanded and sent home; they are completely without influence or power and are a waste of taxpayer money until after the next president is installed... if Obama lets that happen. After all, the only military leaders left are those who are loyal to Obama, not the US Constitution.

Amnesty International Finally Takes On The Leftist Iconic "Victims": Palestinians Killed Palestinians

Palestinian rockets killed Gaza civilians during war: Amnesty
They also used Gaza civilians as shields, as well as firing randomly into civilian zones. Their morality is just this: "Any atrocity is fine so long as we shout 'Allahu Ackbar - we are the victims, not those who we slaughter'".

This will not stop the western Leftists from demonizing Israel and Jews. Virulent antisemitism is a very popular hate focus at this point in history. Haters just gotta hate, and they need a focal point for pinpointing group hysteria.

There seems to be no safe place on the entire planet, if you are Jew these days (even Leftist Jews hate Jews).

How Does Congress Know What Obama Is Doing?

The Israeli spies tell them...