We're on the Road

As of last night we are three states over, and will be taking a friend to have heart surgery. Sounds very serious, much more than the "slide in four stents and send 'em home".

So, posting will be spotty, depending.

More On Academic Anti-Semitism

Headline:

Professors Engage in Anti-Semitic Rhetoric on Secret Listserv
Professors for BDS slam ‘Zionist’ control of the media, academia

BY: Adam Kredo
May 27, 2014 12:25 pm

"Leaked messages from an internal listserv of university professors involved in the debate surrounding an effort to boycott Israel have revealed a deep bias against the Jewish state and anti-Semitic accusations that Zionists and Jewish people control academia.

The highly charged rhetoric about Israel, revealed last week on a leaked listserv, show that some professors involved in the Modern Language Association’s (MLA) resolution to boycott Israel are motivated by the belief that Jewish people are nefariously pulling the strings in American academia.

The leaked comments have spurred accusations of anti-Semitism in the MLA’s ranks and prompted outrage among Jewish leaders who say that this type of discourse is motivated by a deep seated bias against Jewish people and the state of Israel.

The charges of anti-Semitism were underscored by a controversial Facebook posting by one of the professors involved in the debate questioning the deaths of 6 million Jewish people in the Holocaust.

Other professors involved in the debate referred to colleagues who oppose the boycott measure as “Zionist attack dogs” and claimed that they “control and twist the media.”

The MLA, a 30,000 member-strong organization of academics, is currently considering a resolution to censure the Jewish state. The measure is being viewed as part of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which is behind multiple efforts to isolate Israel from the halls of academia."

The Left is increasingly emboldened to show their true stripes: totalitarian antisemitic elitists who wish to stomp out all who are not part of their pack.

Anti-Semitism Roars Back on College Campuses.

BDS stands for "Boycott Divestment and Sanctions"; it is the antisemitic tactic du jour, applied by Leftists against Israel. The point of BDS is to make demands on university administration for divestment of university investment in Israel and investment in corporations which deal with Israel. It is a classic case of class designation, with the Palestinians being the Victim Class, and Israel being the Oppressor Class. Student Leftist activists are, of course, the Messiah Class, self-righteous saviors of the Palestinians.

The following excerpts are from an article written by an Israeli who speaks on American campuses about his experiences as a commander in the Israeli Defense Forces:

"In the last few years, the "Boycott Divestment and Sanctions" ("BDS") campaign has grown on college campuses. Presented as a "human rights movement," its apparent goal is a broad-based boycotting of the Jewish State because of alleged human rights violations. However, a YouTube video of anti-Israeli activists at Galway University shows the real face of BDS.

The Three Stages of a BDS Campaign

The BDS campaign is a new front in the Arab-Israeli conflict, directed at Israel. Its tactics are simple.

Stage 1: Start a student group and build relationships with other minorities' student groups. Get them to like you. After convincing them that you are an ally, get them to support your anti-Israel narrative. Tell them that you're not against Jews, only against the Jewish state. If you have Jewish students in your anti-Israel group, bring them along to the meeting and have them speak about how Israel's existence conflicts with Jewish values. Portray the Palestinians as the underdog.

Stage 2: Arrange displays on your campus--the bigger the better. Put up an eight-foot high cardboard "Wall" that you claim is a smaller version of the separation fence that Israel built to protect against suicide bombers. Include a mock checkpoint. Bring anti-Israel speakers. Use language that will resonate with the other student groups. Do all of this preparation to make your campus receptive to your anti-Israel message. Remember, most people are naïve and uniformed. If your message is highly emotional and uses the language of the political left, many students will side with you wanting to learn more.

At the same time, start lobbying members of student government. Meet with them often as you can. Get them to know and like you. Start "educating" them with biased and misleading information. Get them to believe that Israel is a "criminal state." You may even want to run for the student senate to become a senator yourself, a tactic just recently used at Loyola University, where nine student senators who voted for a BDS divestment resolution were BDS leaders at the school.

Stage 3: Bring a Boycott and Divestment resolution to the student government. Last year, BDS supporters at over 20 colleges introduced anti-Israel divestment resolutions in their student senates and demanded that the senators bring their resolutions to a vote. In recent weeks, we've seen anti-Israel resolutions introduced at several more campuses. Some were defeated. Some passed.
- See more at: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/05/the_bds_bullies_take_over.html#sthash.CHbx8ahc.dpuf"

There is a stock quote from these anti-semites which goes something like this: being anti-Zionist is not anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. But in fact it is.

"This is how it's happening all across the globe, from Kings College in London to South African universities. To be sure, though, the BDS campaign isn't really about divestment. Its supporters know that Israel is a thriving country, with companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Intel and so many others investing billions in its economy. To that end, they knew very well that even if some several hundred universities agreed to boycott Israel, they would have a a negligible impact on Israel's economy.

BDS organizers say so themselves in their handbook. They very clearly say that boycotts, divestments and sanctions have nothing to do with hurting Israel financially. Rather, they know that pushing for boycotts and divestment from Israel is just a way of promoting an anti-Israel political agenda. BDS advocates know that the student senators will become the leaders of tomorrow who will influence our countries' policies. They believe that, even if they lose, they'll have had the chance to damage Israel's reputation and undercut American support, even if only a little at a time.

...

How far will it go? We already seen acts of violence and one unacceptable use of derogatory epithets used against Jewish students at some. Even if some BDS supporters are Jewish, that does not cleanse the campaign of the increasing stench of anti-Semitism. We can fool ourselves and say that BDS campus campaigns are not directed against the Jewish students, but BDS does not target Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. Instead, in the name of human rights for Palestinians in the Middle East, BDS targets only the one Jewish state, Israel, which consistently is rated as having the highest level of "freedom" of the 57 countries in the Middle East. Can they really say that they're concerned about human rights?"

What they are concerned with is the destruction of the only western nation in the middle East. Just as they are focused on the destruction of free speech, American value systems, and actual objective education. They already know everything they need to know, which is that Messiahist class war brings power. Nietzsche would be proud.

No NAMALTs Allowed

The feminista world has long gone psycho and it has the terminology to back it up (NAMALT, NIGEL, and UNICORN - not what you might think - as well as PIV). It's a dark world these women inhabit, one where only (feminist) women are safe to enter.

"...a slogan framed as a reply to “Not All Men,” which is a feminist pet peeve: Whenever they complain about men in general, someone is always certain to point out that the generalization is unfair:

NAMALT – internet (feminist) shorthand for ‘Not All Men Are Like That’. . . .

NAMALTs usually happen within the context of explaining how widespread a problem is with males; male supremacy; or male violence. If too many women are agreeing that this is indeed a widespread problem with males in general, then one or more NAMALTers rush in, and, well, just NAMALT.

Once the NAMALTing starts, it becomes a tsunami of NALMATing, NIGELs and UNICORNs.

NIGEL is feminist internet shorthand for NIcest Guy who Ever Lived. And Unicorns . . . are apparently these very special pro-feminist men that are shoved at radfems, who are understandably skeptical that such pure creatures exist.

Radical feminists do not hesitate to include all men in their condemnations of the “patriarchy,” and NAMALTing is not allowed:

The phenomenon of NAMALTing is also the phenomenon of stating NAFALT (Not All Feminists Are Like That), ie, not being one of those nasty manhater types of feminists. Yeah sure, we get it. Your ‘feminist’ politics are ‘man friendly’. They are also bullshit. Feminism is the only political movement that prioritises women’s rights and needs above the mainstream (ie male domination). If you cannot do that, then don’t call yourself a feminist.

In other words: No Feminist Can Ever Say Anything Nice About Men.

Understood in this context, #YesAllWomen is a chip on the shoulder, daring anyone to claim not all men are responsible for violence against women — to frame rape and abuse as a collective victimization of women for which men are collectively to blame.

The Apostles of Equality and Progress have brought us here, and the logic of their ”barbarous philosophy” leads in exactly one direction — toward anarchy and oblivion. The Age of Hatred and Violence has merely begun, and it ill behooves those who have delivered us into utmost savagery to disavow the handiwork of their labors."

Creation of both fear and hatred are their stock-in-trade. That's how class warfare works.

More on Victimhood

The Aristocracy of Victimhood

Hanson on Obama

Without using the specific terms, Victor Davis Hanson eloquently describes Messiahism, Victimhood, and the Oppressor Classes of today's Leftists:

"For the liberal grandee, there is a margin of safety to ensure that the California legislature takes up questions like prohibiting the sale of Confederate insignia or ensuring restrooms for the transgendered or shutting down irrigated acreage to please the delta smelt. In their view, Obama represents their utopian dreams where an anointed technocracy, exempt from the messy ramifications of its own ideology, directs from on high a socially just society — diverse, green, non-judgmental, neutral abroad, tribal at home — in which an equality of result is ensured, albeit with proper exemptions for the better educated and more sophisticated, whose perks are necessary to give them proper downtime for their exhausting work on our behalf."

This article by Hanson is a summation of the state of the nation, and things to come:

"Before we reach November of 2016, we will see unimaginable things under this administration, but one of them will not be a defection of his constituencies."

Perhaps this would have happened with any first black president who was also a Consequentialist Leftist Atheist. Obama was a perfect fit for that position. He is completely willing to scold corporate banks and insurance companies while providing them massive perqs on the taxpayer's wallet. He is even willing to watch the poverty rolls expand in order to attack the middle class and small business entrepreneurs. He will emerge rich and revered.

The Pentagon and Gobal Warming: Follow the Money

The Washington Times follows some of the money to be had in AGW:

Retired officers poised to profit after Pentagon’s alarmist climate change report
Urgent Obama call can funnel funds to projects

Retired military officers deeply involved in the climate change movement — and some in companies positioned to profit from it — spearheaded an alarmist global warming report this month that calls on the Defense Department to ramp up spending on what it calls a man-made problem.

The report, which the Obama administration immediately hailed as a call to action, was issued not by a private advocacy group but by a Pentagon-financed think tank that trumpets “absolute objectivity.” The research was funded by a climate change group that is also one of the think tank’s main customers.

The May 13 report came from the military advisory board within CNA Corp., a nonprofit based in Alexandria, Virginia, that includes the Center for Naval Analyses, a Navy-financed group that also gets contracts from other Pentagon units. CNA also operates the Institute for Public Research.

CNA’s webpage states that it is not an advocacy group. It says it maintains “absolute objectivity. In our investigations, analyses and findings we test hypotheses, carefully guard against personal biases and preconceptions, challenge our own findings and are uninfluenced by what a client would like to hear.”

The Center for Naval Analyses’ motto is “high quality, impartial information.”

One of the CNA panel’s vice chairmen, retired Navy Vice Adm. Lee Gunn, is president of a private think tank, the American Security Project, whose prime issue is warning about climate change.

The other vice chairman, retired Army Brig. Gen. Gerald E. Galloway Jr., is a prominent adviser to the Center for Climate and Security, a climate change group.

In all, four CNA board members sit on the panel of advisers to the Center for Climate and Security, whose statements on climate change are similar to those found in the CNA report.

Other board members work in the climate change world of consulting and technology.

The CNA advisory panel is headed by retired four-star Army Gen. Paul Kern, who sits on the board of directors of a company that sells climate-detection products to the Pentagon and other government agencies. At least two other board members are employed in businesses that sell climate change expertise and products.

The greatest influence on CNA reports seems to come from the Center for Climate and Security, whose position is that the debate on climate change, or man-made global warming, is over.

“This is a world which recognizes that climate change risks are unprecedented in human history and does not wait for absolute certainty before acting to mitigate and adapt to those risks,” the center says.

The CNA report, titled “National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change,” says: “Some in the political realm continue to debate the cause of a warming planet and demand more data.” It then quotes a board member as saying, “Speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”

The Center for Climate and Security has taken donations from the Tides Foundation, which gets money from Democratic Party financier and liberal billionaire George Soros.
[Emphasis added]

But It's Been So Obvious For Seven Years

Headline:

CNN's King: More Dems Calling Obama 'Detached,' 'Incompetent'

It's not just Republicans saying President Barack Obama is out of touch as the VA scandal continues to grow.

CNN's John King on Sunday's "Inside Politics," noted that "More and more Democrats in key 2014 races are calling for the president to get a spine, they say, and fire his Veterans Affairs secretary" Eric Shinseki. "And what more and more Democrats are saying privately is scathing, calling the president and his team detached, flat-footed, even incompetent."

King, CNN's chief national correspondent, said that Democrats have been saying privately since the HealthCare.gov opening debacle that "they see a president who doesn't want to take command, doesn't want to act fast."

How many more scandals does Obama have to have? I'm starting to wonder if he might just be the first president to be impeached and convicted. It's really too bad that the first half-black president had to be a fool. Obama has set blacks back quite a ways... not that the Left wants it any different.

Leftist Hyperventilation; Both Funny and Sad

Headline:

Leftists Denounce “American Taliban” University for Replacing Gender Studies w/Constitution

Too much to quote here: read the whole thing.

Debate Winners In Today's America

Headline:

College Wins US Debate Championship By Repeating the N-Word Over and Over, Speaking Incomprehensibly

by Aurelius • May 5, 2014

On March 24, Towson University won the 2014 Cross Examination Debate Association’s national championship. Towson defeated the University of Oklahoma. What was Towson’s strategy? Inexplicably using the N-word over and over again in an incomprehensible tirade.

Here is an actual excerpt (with profanity redacted)[profanity restored; ed.]. See if you are able to tell what Towson is arguing in favor or against:

They say the niggers always already queer, that’s exactly the point! It means the impact is that the that the is the impact term, uh, to the afraid, uh, the, that it is a case term to the affirmative because, we, uh, we’re saying that queer bodies are not able to survive the necessarily means of the body. Uh, uh, the nigger is not able to survive.

Have no idea what the person was arguing? Here, maybe another real excerpt will help you:

Uh, man’s sole “jabringing” object disfigure religion trauma and nubs, uh, the, inside the trauma of representation that turns into the black child devouring and identifying with the stories and into the white culture brought up, uh, de de de de de, dink, and add subjectively like a white man, the black man!

Again, this is a national championship. The organization that holds the debate was founded over 40 years ago and has held national debate tournaments for decades.

Here is another real excerpt from the debate:

When the nigger, uh, sees these pains and suffering that he can only, uh, envision himself that he, uh, does not see another nigger that he, uh, can feel sympathy for or embrace, but rather, uh, that, a-bluh, that that otherness gets obliterated.

One last excerpt from the winners:

Uh, says that the the the way status co works is through, uh, whiteness allowing, uh, forcing other bodies to tell, uh, nearations of whiteness in, uh, the violences that whiteness does me, uh, say that that is the link that we will go for!

By the way, they were debating the WAR POWERS RESOLUTION."

Lawless Government: the US Supreme Court Silently Rewrites It's Final Decisions

Headline:

Final Word on U.S. Law Isn’t: Supreme Court Keeps Editing

"WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has been quietly revising its decisions years after they were issued, altering the law of the land without public notice. The revisions include “truly substantive changes in factual statements and legal reasoning,” said Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard and the author of a new study examining the phenomenon."

The Friendly Atheist Defends the FFRF Attacks

The few times I’ve visited “the friendly Atheist’s” blog, Hemant Mehta has seemed to be on the bland side compared to most internet Atheists. However, in his defense of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Mehta takes another tone, perhaps one closer to the real Atheist he actually is:

”That’s how you know these people are crazy. They’re not interested in the facts, only promoting their own propaganda. You knew that the moment they tossed out the comical phrase “militant atheism.” Remember: FFRF isn’t fighting for atheists to receive special treatment. They just want atheists to be treated fairly under the law — and they go after Christians who think their faith gives them permission to ignore the rules.

FFRF’s militancy is little more than a group of dedicated people writing letters to warn people that they are violating the Constitution. The attorneys there have no desire to stop the religious speech of individuals. They defend those rights. They don’t sue churches for holding worship services or after-school Bible clubs for meeting. They only request equal treatment under the law.

Damn near all of their lawsuits involve Christians who cross the legal line in a way that would make Fox News flip out if any other group pulled the same shit. Like public school coaches pushing Christianity on their athletes, or elected officials using their office to promote their faith, or the IRS allowing churches to get away with endorsing political candidates.

If atheists acted like the Christians that FFRF goes after, maybe Ryan’s group would have a point. As it stands, this is what a whining majority looks like when they realize they no longer get to trample over the minority without a fight.

Remember: FFRF isn’t fighting for atheists to receive special treatment. They just want atheists to be treated fairly under the law — and they go after Christians who think their faith gives them permission to ignore the rules.

And that’s how you know that Mehta is lying. Along with all AtheoLeftists who demand a false interpretation of the First Amendment, Mehta thinks he can claim that the FFRF defends freedom of speech by shutting down all non-Atheist speech in public venues.

Mehta claims that it is oppression of Atheism to have any non-Atheist speech in public venues. That is why it is necessary to “warn people” that they will be attacked with an expensive lawsuit if they do not bow before the Atheist financial assault.

The FFRF sues the smallest of cities and school districts with the demand that they prostrate themselves before the all-Atheist public utopia in which the Atheists can comfortably feel safe from having to tolerate any thoughts outside Atheism. (Aka “secularism”).

When Mehta refers to a “whining majority”, he is really not referring to the majority, he is referring to the tiny towns and organizations which the FFRF attacks. The FFRF does not attack large cities with “Saint” or "Angels" in their heritage and names, they attack tiny towns with a symbol of their heritage on a flag or monument. They are cowards, implementing Atheism by bullying the smallest, only.

Mehta makes this incredible lapse of rationality:

”Remember: FFRF isn’t fighting for atheists to receive special treatment. They just want atheists to be treated fairly under the law — and they go after Christians who think their faith gives them permission to ignore the rules.”

That is a lie; Atheists are specifically installing official Atheism in every public place they think they can bully into it. It is true that they go after Christians, but only the smallest fry who they can bully with financial ruin. The FFRF consistently loses when they attack someone who fights back. And as for rules, neither Hemant nor the FFRF mean the First Amendment; what Hemant means is the corruption of "free speech" protection into "Atheism-only" speech protection – again called secularism, which means Atheism.

Atheists portray themselves as delicate little flowers who are oppressed by the evil Christians (see the silly pie chart at Hemant’s blog), fragile little pansies who are trampled by the presence of non-Atheist thought in their midst, so they must fight to install total freedom from non-congruence because Atheism cannot withstand actual tolerance. Because Atheists are so delicate, so fragile. The legal case against the 911 cross contained the physical illnesses (gastric distress) which afflict poor Atheists in the presence on non-Atheism. And THAT is the oppression which Atheists must fight.

But Atheists have never actually been the delicate flowers they pretend to be. Atheism has, by far, the most violent and bloody history of repression and oppression of all, when it comes to Atheists in power. Their oppression in the USA is completely transparent compared to Atheist oppression of the religious in the 20th and 21st century Atheist nations which dominated huge portions of Earth. First the Atheists eradicate the opposition; then they start on each other, all the while promoting equality.