Zoolander: The Social Justice Warrior

It is not so often that I get to talk about my guilty pleasures in life. Stupid comedies happens to be one of them and Zoolander is near the top of the list. And therefore, no one was more excited for the sequel than I am. My wife hates the movie by the way, if someone is interested, I still need a date to see the movie, as my wife will not go to watch with me.

But I digress. I came across a Mashable article about the terrible movie that depicts a transgender model as an antagonist.

The petition to boycott Zoolander 2 now boasts nearly 17000 signatures. The author of the petition states "This is the modern equivalent of using blackface to represent a minority,".


I just wanted to let that sink in. If this author of the petition weren't serious it would be laughable. Clearly they didn't see the first movie, which made fun of models. Which is a much larger minority than Transgender. They also neglected to mention that in the first installment the orgy that took place. The movie and I am sure its sequel will break boundaries of many sorts. People feel the need to be offended by anything. If someone is gay, transgender of whatever, don't look to be offended by some stupid low brow comedy, just be who you are.

This new trend of being offended at a sneeze must stop. If you are expecting PC-ness from a movie that boasts ridiculously good looking people than you are barking up the wrong tree. On behalf of all watchers of terrible and slapstick comedies, CHILL OUT!

Why the Syrian Immigrants? Because the Pilgrims, Duh!

When I was younger, I used to think that smart asses were in fact actually SMART!  But, the more I live my godforsaken existence as a privileged white male Jew who is painfully undersexed and drinks too much, the more I realize that being a "smart ass" is actually a substitute for being smart.  Case in point: in an attempt to both assuage our fears and concerns about letting in 10,000 Syrian "refugees" into the United States and to shame the people who don't want to let 10,000 Syrian "refugees" in the country, John Oliver "pointed out" that "there was once a time when a group of people let immigrants into their country and were wiped out, and we're celebrating it this Thursday."

Naturally the smart asses on my Facebook friends' list and many others thought this was so clever and astute that they posted it on their newsfeeds, patted themselves on their collective backs, rejoiced  at the double digit "likes" they received (as if what they posted was an original thought and not pulled from a meme) and went about their days in a collective self-righteous haze.

Aside from disguising their self loathing under a veil of "human rights interests", their whole premise is both completely a.)untrue and b.) ironic.

Let's address point a.  The commonly held belief among Social Justice Warriors, ignoramouses and self-loathing leftists is that, on November 26th, 2015, Americans are once again celebrating a holiday built on a lie, one that makes a light hearted celebration on backs of a bunch of peaceful, dead Indians that the white man slaughtered for his personal and financial gain.  It's obvious; they gave them a bunch of small pox covered blankets to kill them off and take their land.  On top of that, whoever wasn't killed by small pox was simply shot dead.

As Steve Crowder's amusing video points out, Native Americans were not a peaceful people going about their lives before the white man invaded and gave them war.  I mean, it would make sense since, I assume tomahawks are used for something OTHER than chopping trees and the practice of scalping wasn't invented in the west.  But, even if they just warred among each other, does that give the white man rights to usurp their land?  No, of course not.  Pilgrims made deals with different groups of tribes who were fighting with other groups of tribes for mutual benefit.  And besides, all world history is shrouded in bloodshed on all sides.  What makes this different?

But what about those pesky small pox?  Unless microbiology labs existed where groups of white men created deadly microbes deliberately designed to kill people in the 1700s, I think of this as an exaggerated myth, one with maybe 10% truth.  White men probably brought diseases that did kill a bunch of Native Americans unintentionally.  That fucking sucks.

Are American Indians an oppressed group?  You tell me; if you can prove your Cherokee heritage and someone gives you a free college tuition or you are killing it in the casino business, are you going to complain?  Also, no Indians care about a football team called the Redskins just as much as I wouldn't care if there was a football team called the New Jersey Hook Noses.

But let's address point b.

Assuming everything I said about how the white man really wasn't on a genocidal rampage against the Indians isn't true and the white man came to the new world, saw a bunch of savages and slaughtered them willy nilly to get the gold, don't you find it ironic that they're using THAT as the example of why we SHOULD bring Syrian refugees into the country?

The gap of logic is insane here!  The Indians were wiped out, so as a result, we, the American people deserve a little bit of the wiping as well.  I've said it before; the influx of Muslim immigrants into European countries is not a good thing!  Sweden is officially the rape capital of the world and the people raping those fine, buxom broads are not vikings!  Similarly, one only has to look at the no-go zones in France to see that this whole multiculturalism thing doesn't work.

I honestly think leftists hate themselves so much that they're willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.  Sorry, but, I like my big, Jewish nose, so NO THANK YOU!  I'm going to enjoy my post-Thanksgiving hangover in the hopes that I will continue to do so for many years in a country that I still recognize as the United States of America.

I need glasses for my eyes, not my brain!

I need glasses for my eyes.

I do, I need glasses for my nearsightedness. What I don’t need glasses for is shortsightedness, unlike our president. Rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline is extremely shortsighted.

“Now, Bradley,” some might say, “The president gave three very good reasons to reject the pipeline.”

Yes, President Obama did give three reasons to reject the pipeline.

The first reason cited is jobs. Now, I’m no economist but it does take time to build a pipeline, so for that period of time people have jobs. It also takes people to maintain the pipeline, so those people have jobs after construction. Then there are the people who refine the oil, and more of those jobs would likely have become available. Finally, there are the people at the end of the pipeline working in the Gulf of Mexico to load the oil on to ships for export. Unless I’m mistaken, those are all jobs, and that’s called an economic boom!

The second reason cited is gas prices. Yes, gas prices are dropping. Last week I filled up for less than $2/gal. Today I could not believe my eyes when I saw gas drop to $1.77(9). I was flabbergasted when I saw the station across the street not matching the price, but that’s their business, right? Again, I’m not an economist, and I know gas price is determined by a global market place, but I’m fairly certain shipping Canada’s oil to Europe instead of China would help lower their gas prices, and in a small world such as the one we live in isn’t that the neighborly thing to do?

The third reason cited is energy security. This is where I have my beef, not just about America’s energy security, but with our allies’ energy security as well. It’s not just neighborly to help Canada ship oil across the Atlantic; it’s a matter of global security.

“Now, Bradley,” some might say, “how can shipping more oil overseas be in any way related to global security?”

Do people know where Europe gets its oil? Do people know where Israel gets its oil? Do people know the cost of gas overseas? Prices might be downright peachy over here, but across the Atlantic it’s a whole other ballgame.

Currently, Europe is in a better situation than ever with Russia a major supplier of oil, but not in control of the pipelines. Further, the falling oil prices have hurt the Russian economy. However, that’s a problem, because the bad economy requires distraction for national pride, hence Putan’s sudden intervention in Syria. With the U.S. out, Russia is back, baby! Israel isn’t celebrating.

Back in the 80’s Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union in an arms race their economy could not support. Today, the best way to hold Russia in check is to help gas prices fall faster, hopefully forcing Putan to stop wasting money on military interventions in places he doesn’t belong.

Then there is the Mideast. Wouldn’t it be nice if the nations who fund terror organizations predating ISIS suddenly found it a bit more difficult to find the money to spend? I know one nation that would be elated by the sudden shift in power over oil, not to mention the lower gas prices.

Unfortunately, instead of making sure oil gets into the hands of our allies to help create a long term chain reaction that helps them get away from hostile nations’ oil, President Obama’s shortsightedness has declared the status quo is the way to go. No offense, Israel.

So where does that leave us?

Right now, as a Jew, I feel like I’m standing before God on Yom Kippur.

For those who aren’t familiar with how Yom Kippur works, here’s the short, short version: We fast all day, confess the same sins we keep committing every year, and ask God to give us one more year to get things right. Then the next year we go back and do it all over again.

But as an American I’m standing before Canada right now, and I’m  begging them to please give us just one more election to get it right, and then we’ll build the pipeline!

Yes, I need glasses for my eyes, but Mr. President, I’m afraid you need glasses for your brain!

The Unbearable Lightness of Being John Kerry's Brain

Not being terribly upset about anything this week (I'm trying to watch my blood pressure), I decided to take on some low-hanging fruit and write about our remarkable Secretary of State, John Kerry. I am of the opinion that Kerry is part of some secret pro-Hillary cabal, and his role is to be such a bad SecState that Hillary looks good by comparison.

So far, he's doing a bang-up job.

A few days ago Kerry decided to speak off the cuff about the Paris attacks. Bad idea. For those of you who missed it:

There’s something different about what happened [on November 13] from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that. This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate.
It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for. That’s not an exaggeration. It was to assault all sense of nationhood and nation-state and rule of law and decency, dignity, and just put fear into the community and say, “Here we are.” And for what? What’s the platform? What’s the grievance? That we’re not who they are? They kill people because of who they are and they kill people because of what they believe. And it’s indiscriminate.

[emphasis mine]

Wow. That's a lot of stupid to unpack, isn't it?

I guess the first thing a pro-Israel blogger sees is the glaring omission of the Hyper-Cachet kosher market in Paris. Those four "random" people who were slaughtered because they were Jews: did their deaths also have a "legitimacy" and a "rationale," Mr. Secretary?

As for what he did say: there's the confident and clueless "I think everybody would feel that." (Has he discovered that not everybody felt that, do you think?)

And the incredulous "What’s the grievance? That we’re not who they are?" Um, yep. Pretty much. 

But the biggest problem is what his comments show us about the mindset of this administration, which still will not pronounce the words "radical Islam." Writing for National Review, Andrew McCarthy says he doesn't understand "why anyone is surprised by Kerry’s sentiments. They perfectly reflect seven years of Obama-administration policy aimed at eroding the First Amendment in order to accommodate Islamic blasphemy standards."

According to Kerry's boss, the future "must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." It's one of the few things Obama is passionate about.

White Supremacist Thugs Are Not the Same as Radical Muslims

I'm just shocked by how what appear to be intelligent people have the capability to oversimplify situations and draw a direct parallel between white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan or loan wolf murderer Dylann Roof and Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS or Al-Qaida.  No, I wish I COULD make such basic comparisons, because it means that I'm able to completely shut my brain off, stop thinking critically for a couple seconds, post a stupid meme and feel satisfied with myself.

But, whenever I see people post this kind of stuff on Facebook and feel as if they've made some grand observation, the part of me that itches for a fight (of words of course) prompts me to explain to people how fucking dumb that is.

Have you seen those memes?  The ones that say, "more terrorism has been committed by white Christian groups than by Muslims" under pictures of the KKK, Dylann Roof or Timothy McVeigh?  Or the one where it shows a picture of the Klan and says, "okay, Christians, what have you done about the Klan?"  How do people have that uncanny ability to over simplify like that?

Let's break down this phenomenon of social media's incredible way of reaffirming some of the stupidest views by people who are too lazy to read full length books.

The Ku Klux Klan is NOT a Christian group.  Just because they claim to be Christians doesn't mean that they're purpose is to spread Christianity.  That makes about as much sense as saying that Bosheviks and Communists are Jewish organizations.  They happen to be led by Jews and consist of a lot of Jews, but they're definitely not spreading Judaism or Jewish culture.  Similarly, that makes about as much sense as saying the Mafia is trying to spread Sicilian culture.

Now then, what is the goal of ISIS or Al-Qaida?  Like Islam itself, the purpose is to have a caliphate everywhere.  These groups aren't committing acts of terror IN SPITE of the members of their group, but because of them and what they believe.  People have to ask themselves, were members of the KKK radicalized in a church, reading Christian doctrine and decided that Christian doctrine was their impetus to then go and commit crimes against people of a different skin color or ethnicity?  Does this make any sense?  Was Dylann Roof inspired to spread Christianity when he shot up those people in the church?  No, of course not.  He was a racist psychopath.

So, what is the bottom line?  The bottom line is that Muslim apologists are trying to figure out another angle to prove why the United States should let 10,000 Syrian "refugees" into the country, in spite the fact that many members of ISIS have said blatantly that they will hide among the "refugees", in spite the fact that many WILL get radicalized in American mosques and in spite the fact that the vetting process "vets" nothing - what exactly is a background check and who exactly are they doing these checks with?  And assuming only 1% will get radicalized, which is a fallacious claim at best, that's still 100 fresh, radical Muslims running around trying to use bombs, guns and knives to establish a caliphate in West, which, as far as I'm concerned is 100 too many.

A week hadn't gone by before another act of terror was committed after the attack in Paris, this time at a hotel in Mali.  Islam isn't a race; it's a religion, a culture and essentially a twisted political view.  There is no such thing as "Islamophobia."  It's just another buzzword used by apologists, multiculturalists and leftists to squash any criticism of Islam.  We are allowed to be cultural chauvinists and say, if you can't live by our rules and our way of life, then you can't live here.

As Ben Shapiro said, "there's a point where ignorance becomes sin."  It's attitudes of the people who draw false equivalencies that will inevitably lead to a lot more innocent people being killed.

Yes we are ARE afraid of ISIS

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing this letter to you not as a conservative, not as a republican, not as a blogger. I am writing today as a father and a husband. For as much as I want and will move heaven and earth to protect my family, I know that most of the security aspects are well taken care of by government. I go out of my way to teach my daughter to thank soldiers, policemen, firemen and everyone who volunteers to keep us safe and secure. We pray every week in Synagogue for the well being of our Country and its leaders, that includes you Mr. President. I was a single guy when 9-11 happened, I had no one to worry about. This past week, my world was shaken; a Russian airliner, a Lebanese bombing, and a coordinated attack on civilians in Paris. Not to mention the countless stabbing murders in Israel. Frightening and sickening. Over the past few days we have seen ISIS videos threatening DC and New York. As a father I shudder and push any horrible thoughts about the future out of my head, I look to the government that secures my Families safety - I find nothing.

I find a President that mocks my concerns. I find a President who ignores my fears. I find a President that doesn't have the decency to show up for a moment of silence. And if you think that the word I is too inwardly focused, you'd be correct. For while I have compassion and want to see everyone taken care of, the logical side of me takes over. I need to protect my family like the President needs to protect his citizens. I am his citizen, my 6 year old daughter is his responsibility to keep safe, my wife is his responsibility to keep safe.

I shake my head in disbelief about the horrors of ISIS, but I am afraid of them because our President is not.

May God Bless these United States.

Je Suis Western Civilization

Paris is on everyone's mind this week. Reading some of the commentary online, I discovered that the post I wanted to write had already been written (much better than I would have done, of course), by the indispensable Elder of Ziyon. (BTW, never think that one person can't make a difference: virtually singlehandedly, EoZ  forced the UN to finally start kicking ass and taking names at that sketchy organization known as UNRWA.)

The Elder reminds us that if you're France, you can swear bloody vengeance on your attackers and people will cheer you and sing "La Marseillaise"; but if you're Israel, you have to be careful not to use disproportionate force—G-d forbid you're good at defending your citizens and fewer of them die!—and you have to always do just a little bit more than you're doing to make sure that no civilians are ever harmed, and for goodness' sake keep that rhetoric tamped down...and people will accuse you of war crimes anyway.

On, the UK website better known for its sidebar photo-essays of Kardashians and British royalty than political reporting, a throwaway line caught my attention. Someone was interviewing a woman at one of the makeshift memorial sites that have sprung up all over Paris. And she said: "Before, they targeted Charlie Hebdo because they were satirists. Now the target is you and me, happy people who are going out on a Friday night. The people who haven't provoked anyone."

Which made me want to say, with all due respect: NO DUH!

Did the Israeli man driving home from Rosh Hashanah dinner "provoke" anyone? Did the parents who were slaughtered in front of their four children provoke anyone? did the Fogel Family provoke anyone--did their 3-month-old baby do something to deserve having her throat slit? Tell me what that was--besides being a "female settler" that is, which is how Palestinian media referred to her.

The Parisian woman's astonishment over the "unprovoked" violence in Europe goes perfectly with the famous quote that begins "First they came for the Jews...." The Israelis know better than anyone what radical Islam is all about, and they support France unconditionally in their fight against it. Maybe France will return the compliment sometime soon.

Did the British Start Isis? A Historical Look at the ISIS Blame Game

Who is responsible for the rise of ISIS?

More to the point, whom should we blame for the rise of ISIS?

Republicans blame President Obama, Democrats blame President George W. Bush, and currently Secretary Clinton and Governor Jeb Bush are continuing the status quo of blaming the other president.

But who is truly at fault for this mess? I’ll tell you: The British Empire! That’s right, blame Britain! Cue the music! We don’t have music? Well, just swap Britain for Canada in the song and we’ve got our anthem!

But why blame the British? Simple, in 1920 post World War I Iraq the League of Nations put the British in charge of establishing yet another nation with borders that make no sense throwing a bunch of people together who don’t get along. Does this remind anyone about any other nations that should never have existed? Thank God the Czechs and Slovaks don’t hate each other and were able to divorce their unwanted union peacefully. How many other national divorces can we say that about?

Back to ISIS, I’m not letting Presidents Bush and Obama off the hook. In my view they are both equally responsible for this mess for different reasons.

When President George W. Bush left office the Republic of Iraq was a stable but corrupt regime. The Shia Muslim majority in Baghdad was undeniably corrupt. They alienated the northern Sunni cities and citizens as well as the Iraqi Kurds. The Kurds seemingly didn’t care about what happened in Baghdad so long as they were left alone to live as they pleased, something finally possible with the United States toppling of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. At the time a peaceful Republic of Iraq, with acknowledgement of the Shia corruption in Baghdad, still looked like a reality so long as the United States remained engaged in diplomatic and military assistance.

That’s where President Obama mucked everything up. President Obama wanted nothing to do with Iraq on any level. He wanted out as quickly as possible. He made little attempt to sign a status of forces agreement and when Baghdad balked at the usual judicial agreements these agreements contain to protect the foreign troops President Obama blamed them for the failed negotiation and continued his withdrawal plan. Without the United States fully engaged in the region corruption in Baghdad worsened, and the Sunni and Kurds were further alienated from the central government.

Enter Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, who seemingly lost his mind and began using his military to terrorize his own citizens, not only attacking peaceful protestors but wiping out entire neighborhoods and cities. Calls to action were made, but the fact is things deteriorated so quickly there was no way to be certain the United States could arm the good rebels. President Obama issued a “red line” stating that the use of chemical weapons would cross that line and force United States action. The line was crossed and nothing happened. President Obama showed his bluff, and that is when ISIS emerged to fill the power vacuum left by the United States' withdrawal from Iraq.

The “JV” team, as President Obama dubbed ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), quickly took control of northern Syria, made a public showing of the destruction of the Iraq-Syria border, and began entering Iraq to establish their Caliphate.  In northern Iraq, the alienated Sunni citizens welcomed the Sunni ISIS warriors with open arms. Sunni Iraq soldiers stripped off their uniforms and turned over their equipment (provided by the United States for Iraq’s protection against threats foreign and domestic). What the Sunni people did not understand is the difference between corrupt politicians and the monsters they allowed into their towns. Instead of happily joining a Sunni Caliphate, the former Iraqi soldiers were murdered and the Sunni citizens were terrorized, forced into accepting a lifestyle of violence they had never experienced and never wanted.

The “JV” team now had its Caliphate spreading from northern Syria through northern Iraq, weapons originally provided by the United States for a noble purpose and left behind by President Obama, and oil wells. But that was just the beginning. ISIS was able to spread into Northern Africa and link with other terrorist groups there. Last week ISIS took down a plain in Egypt, and then this past weekend happened in France. ISIS is clearly no “JV” terrorist group. ISIS is the greatest terror threat the world faces today. The threat is so great France is now working with Russia instead of the United States to take the fight to them while President Obama is having unofficial meetings with President Putan to discuss the ISIS threat. Russia has moved into Syria and is taking control of the situation, looking like an enticing ally for other Middle Eastern nations to partner with. The price will obviously hit the world at the gas pumps, but that’s a discussion for another day.

With the history lesson complete, we now return to the blame game.

So who is to blame? Clearly President George W. Bush would have been wiser to continue holding Saddam Hussein in check rather than removing him from power as he held the terrorists in check that would become ISIS. He cannot escape his blame. Cleary President Obama is to blame for not actively pursuing a status of forces agreement to keep United States troops in Iraq to help keep the peace and help keep the Sunni Iraqi’s feeling safe and secure to the point they would never have considered letting the monsters into their homes. Meanwhile the United States forces in Iraq would have been able to act quickly to secure the border with Syria and prevent ISIS from ever entering the Republic of Iraq.

But the truth is all of that is neither here nor there, because the true root cause of the problems in Iraq are far older than the Bush and Obama administrations. The problems in Iraq date back to 1920, when League of Nations mandated this ridiculous state of Iraq into existence under the control of the British Empire. Instead of allowing the Kurds to have their nation, the Sunnis to have their nation, and the Shia to have their nation (or simply become part of a neighboring Shia nation) the borders of Iraq we know today were created.

People called Vice President Joe Biden crazy when he suggested splitting Iraq into three independent nation states following the fall of Saddam Hussein. Yet today it looks like Joe was right. These people do not get along. The corrupt Shia government in Baghdad, under the diplomatic watch of the United States State Department, created a policy of alienation. Much Sunni territory has been lost to ISIS, and up until recently the Kurds had been held out of the fight by Baghdad, the same Kurds being the only people in Iraq who have shown the capability and willingness to fight the evil ISIS has brought down upon the nation.

So who is to blame? Who else: The British Empire. If Donald Trump truly understood international politics and world history he would not just be talking about having Mexico pay for the wall that needs to be built along the southern border of the United States. No, Trump would be calling for the British to get off their high horses and go back into Iraq to clean up the mess they originally created.

We can blame Bush, we can Blame Obama, we can certainly blame Hillary Clinton, but who should we really be blaming? We are Americans, and it is our national duty to blame Britain and demand they clean up the mess they originally created, with our assistance of course. After all, the British may have created the mess, but it took two United States Presidents to muck it up.

Time to stop blaming and start fixing, Britain included.

But if we must continue blaming someone, blame Britain!

Our Leaders Have been Called "Stupid". What do you think?

Our Leaders are “Stupid”?

Stupid is a subjective term. Our leaders are, for the most part, well educated, perhaps in some cases too much so. The simple fact they made it through life to this point should be evidence that they can think through an issue. That is what we generally consider evidence that they are not stupid. The problem we are up against is that our entrenched leaders are not particularly interested in what made and makes our country great and the only one in the world based in liberty. They are interested in their own glory; their own fortunes. They wish not to lose their “jobs”, their positions of power and “respect”. In that, they are truly stupid as that is not what our form of government, a representative republic, expects of them.

Our Congressmen and Senators are there to represent the people who elected them. Instead they represent the ideology of their particular party and dare not, for good cause in some cases, challenge the leadership of that party in fear of being ostracized and thus not being able to retain their “jobs”; get re-elected. (As an aside, the Senators were never meant to represent the people. They were meant to represent the interests of the states from which they came. This, by design would be “partisan” as they would be beholden to the administration in power in that state at that time. Their office length of six years was to insure that no state administration could “clean house” when state elections “changed the fortune” of any Senator. The intent of this was to maintain a degree of stability within the government.)

Term limits were thought to be the solution to the goal of re-election, but have instead created a ladder effect wherein a candidate gets elected to the House of Representatives, terms out and then runs for the Senate, thus “keeping a job”. Perhaps a better solution to break the chain of lifelong public office holders would be to eliminate pensions. You serve in the government because you believe it is your civic duty rather than a path to a lifelong pension. Perhaps also a return to Senators being appointed by the state administrations rather elected by the people would break the chain of “up-officing” currently practiced and return the Senate to the deliberative, congressional balancing force it was intended to be.

A Brave New World

Battle lines around the world have been drawn. Everyone talks a big game in the war against ISIS. But does anyone actually believe the US will do anything? Does anyone believe that the G20 will do anything? No, no one believes that crap. ISIS has destroyed the lines of countries, and ushers in not only terror into the world, but non state entities acting on the world's behalf.


Anonymous has declared war on the Islamic State. What does that actually mean. How do two non state actors fight one another. We are entering into a scary world. World power need to wake up. Letting ISIS and Anonymous dictate warfare is a dangerous proposition.



Between you and me, I'll take a leader who will kill ISIS, Go Anonymous?

Does the West Have Battered Wives Syndrome When It Comes to Islam?

I'm not going to be nice this time; not that I was ever nice about it or ever hid my antipathy for Islam.  This isn't a new argument, but it's one that gets ignored by the majority of liberals, leftists and multi-culturalists: WHY THE FUCK are you so supportive of a group of people that so vehemently HATES you and wants to see you dead?

The statistics of last night's attack on Paris are pointless to recall; how many were killed, how many were kidnapped... who cares?  The answer is a lot and it keeps happening over and over and over again.

Yet, I didn't time it but, the lefties on my Facebook friend list - the count keeps dropping - IMMEDIATELY went to the defense of all Muslims and, rather than attacking the attackers and doing what NORMAL people do when they've been hit - that is, cuss a lot and call the person that hit them every dirty word in the book, they go and start making excuses, apologizing on the behalf of the entire culture and telling people to keep their cool heads because, ya know, Khalif who you work with didn't do it.  Oh, and Khalif isn't a Muslim, he's a Syrian Catholic...

No, but seriously, CLEARLY we have a problem.

For some unfathomable reason, the West is a culture which is quick to throw some dumb hillbilly under the bus for refusing to dole out marriage licenes or is quick to support the bankrupting and shutting down of a cake business for not making a gay wedding cake, but REFUSES to put the screws to the the most intolerant, retrograde death cult religion.  One question that never comes up is, how come nobody's ever been labeled a Sikhophobe or a Hinduophobe?  BECAUSE THOSE FUCKING RELIGIONS AREN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR 99.999999% OF THE TERRORIST ACTS!!!

And my theory is not that people are afraid of getting blown up, stabbed to death or shot by Muslims, although that certainly IS a possibility since you never know when one of those psychos will strike, but that people are afraid of being called racists or Islamophobes.  They literally have Islamophobiaphobia!  They're afraid their reputations will be ruined and they won't be able to get a job.  That's it.  Death is not a real threat until you see it up close.  Anything up to that point is just people trying to ruin your livelihood.  And for what?

For the results of last night's attack in Paris?

For a culture that keeps moving into the west and than spitting on it?

To have more western women be kidnapped, tortured and raped for not being Muslims?

To have gay people strung up on ropes and thrown off of roofs?

To have more cartoonists stabbed and shot for drawing the image of a 1400 year old Saudi Arabian pedophile?

The common excuse given is that there are good Muslims and only 1% commit acts of terror.  That "1%" didn't fall from the sky; they live among and go to the same mosques as other Muslims and they kill in the name of Islam!  How do people not see the problem with that? Whenever someone like Dylann Roof kills a bunch of black people, leftists are quick to yell at the oppressive, racist, white culture, but when Muslims, who aren't even a race, but a religion kill a bunch of people, leftists push for cultural sensitivity.  It makes no sense.

Aside from a handful of mildly apologetic reporters and a handful of not Muslim enough Muslims who are most likely derided by their families, there is no majority voice of dissent against these attacks.  If you are a Muslim, you are wearing the same clothing and following the same customs as the attackers and you say nothing.  You watch as a city gets blown up and say, "it's not all of us", yet get vehemently PISSED OFF the second anybody draws your stupid pedophile prophet and rationalize why it's okay to kill someone for drawing him.

Muslims aren't trying to integrate; they are trying to invade and take over.  We've seen evidence of this from the girl who sued Abercrombie & Fitch for not letting her wear or hijab and won when she could have easily gone to a different job.  We've seen this when a group of Muslims tried to impose their own courts in Irving, TX and were rightfully shut down.  We've seen this when an airline attendant claimed discrimination when she was suspended for not doing her job.  We've seen this when a group of Muslims shut down a whole street in downtown Los Angeles to pray with zero consideration that, ya know, people drive on those streets.

Immigration without integration is an invasion.  That is what is happening.

There are a few heroes of this narrative; Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Pamela Geller, Bill Maher, Trey Parker and Matt Stone and even the anarchist hardcore punk band Conflict who wrote the surprisingly anti-immigrant song "An Option" at the risk of alienating their core liberal/leftist/anarchist audience by saying that, if you close the borders to Muslims, then you will stop the terrorism and other pernicious things that Muslims do and believe.  They are the brave ones in the media, not the pussy New York Times who won't display Muhammad, but have no problem exhibiting an art piece of the Pope made out of condoms or the godawful Pisschrist piece of shit art.

One of my Facebook friends said, "All fascists are our enemies and these guys need their asses handed to 'em."  I agree that every group of fascists needs to have their asses handed to 'em, but in 2015, the enemies aren't speaking German or Russian, they're speaking various Arabic languages and the second we get over the fear of saying that, maybe we'll see a drop in these attacks.

Feminists Finally Got Their Rape Culture

I forgot the last time I argued with a feminist online, but chances are it was while I was drunk on cheap wine and hopped up on amphetamines on a Friday night after an OKCupid date pretended to be sick because she wasn't horny enough to leave her house.  What I do know is that, if you want to send a feminist into a mindless, Tasmanian Devil style tizzy of yelling, name calling and cussing, just ask her, "instead of complaining about non-existent gender based discrimination, trying to ruin the career  of a NASA scientist for wearing a shirt with scantily clad women on it, trying to ruin video games because you're against fanboys jerking off to Laura Croft or redefining rape as getting a guy in trouble after you regret drunkenly sleeping with him, why don't you help out your brown skinned sisters and take on the real patriarchal rape culture in a Muslim country?"

I realized, however, how redundant that question is.  For you see, technically, you don't need to go to a Muslim country anymore to experience Muslim "culture."  Swedes are currently experiencing it every single day.  In case you didn't know, Sweden is now considered the rape capital of the Western world.

Notice something funny about that BBC article?  Of course you didn't, because you know that the article isn't going to actually say WHO is committing those rapes.  Western liberal media cloaks its deception under clever rhetoric such as "Rape is particularly complex, but you'd think it would be straightforward to analyse murder rates across different countries - just count up the dead bodies, and compare and contrast."

Um, yeah, it is pretty straightforward to analyze and they DID count up the raped bodies.

Since the 1970s Sweden opened its borders to Muslim countries and currently lets in 190,000 Muslims a year.  In a 1996 report from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention noted that Muslims from North African countries are 23 times more likely to commit rape than Swedish men.

Feminists allege we live in a rape culture.  Last time I checked rape is illegal in the U.S. and other Western countries; in fact the crime gets taken so seriously that young men have had their lives ruined by false rape accusations and have almost no legal recourse against it.  On top of that, rape hysteria is so extreme in the eyes of feminists that, in order to uphold their bogus 1 in 4 women (or is it 1 in 5 now?) are victims of sexual assault statistics, they've had to redefine rape, lead people in extremely biased "are you SURE you haven't been raped even though you consented to sex" surveys and, in the case of both Mattress Girl and that Rolling Stone article for which nobody was held accountable, flat out LIE about it.

I also don't have to reiterate that Islam is a VERY patriarchal death cult religion and even so called moderate Muslims aren't particularly moderate.  Women are viewed as second class citizens, mere things to be used at men's disposal, stoned to death if accused of adultery, forced to have depraved clitoral removal surgeries and made to dress in ninja attire at all times.  Western women are regarded even lower than that.  And don't even start about what they think of gay people.

Here's a video of two topless feminists getting the shit kicked out of them for disrupting a Muslim conference about how you should beat your wife up for getting out of line.  Warning: there's boobs and two women getting the shit kicked out of them for getting out line.

Muslim apologists always site the misleading statistic that only 1% of Muslims commit acts of terrorism.  While technically this is true, it completely ignores the Muslims who, aside from funding or tacitly supporting terrorist groups, completely support every other retrograde view that the "religion of peace" has to offer.  Bottom line is dissent within the Muslim community is so little that it's negligible and is often met with death.  As many a Muslim would say, "while we don't necessarily condone people being killed for blaspheming Muhammad the pedophile prophet, we don't feel bad for them if they are."  Above all Sharia law supersedes everything.  

Now then, if rape culture really is defined as a culture that accepts, condones and normalizes rape, then, it's safe to say Islamic cultures are rape cultures.  Furthermore, if Sweden and other Western countries continue this wave of immigration from Muslim countries, then I guess, the feminists are right.  With the exception of brave people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Pamela Geller and activist groups such as the Ban the Burqa, Cultural Marxists and advocates of completely unchecked multiculturalism have created a rape culture.

But, who knows, maybe sex-negative feminists like the hot Armenian Anita Sarkeesian secretly love Islam because, if she's forced to be covered up all the time, she won't have to worry about being objectified.

Yo Yo Yo, This Is Ben Carson, Boiii, Go Vote, My Niggaz!

In a hilarious move of mind boggling stupidity, Ben Carson hired a rapper named Aspiring Mogul to contribute a few lines to a new rap song for his ad campaign deliberately made to target black voters.  To his credit, the song isn't very different from the majority of rap; it's just as unoriginal musically and sounds as if it required zero talent to create.  But, what really begs the question is why Ben Carson felt the need to appeal to a demographic that glorifies the exact opposite behavior from what he preaches.

Let's take this back a step.  One of my Facebook friends trashed modern country, which, to be fair, is pretty grating on the ears.  But, aside from just dissing the music, he made a HILARIOUS joke about how country artists are all inbred, dumb, racist hillbillies.  They iz sooo stupid, dawg!  They don't have the class or sophistication of us hip hop artists with our pants all sagging low, metal on our teeth, tattoos on the side of our faces, creative use of grammar, unique spelling of wurdz and use of a self deprecating racial slur, which has been re-spelled with an "a" and not the "er" at the end only by default since we spell errrthang phonetically.

Like most white people I have the three "essential" rap albums you're supposed to have in your collection if you're a music fan: Straight Outta Compton by N.W.A., Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) by Wu-Tang Clan and Doggystyle by Snoop Doggy Dogg.  These, along with some others, are the classics of the genre.  Loaded with cuss words, telling tales of violence and thuggery, treating women as little more than jizz receptacles - okay, don't yell at me; Enter the Wu-Tang is a tad more unique than the first two because it has the slightly more intellectual lyrics of the Genius and has less gang oriented violence and crass references to sex ('cept the line where Raekwon says "and get my dick rolled all night").

And I'm aware of rap's origins from the New York club scene and giving birth to such early pioneers as Sugarhill Gang, the Furious Five, Kurtis Blow (who was so classy he named himself after what he puts up his nose before crack hit the scene), Afrika Bambaataa, Run DMC and many, many more.  The music went from a mix of bravado and social commentary to a ridiculous parody of itself that portrayed black men as poor mannered sexual predators who enjoy committing crimes.  That's some real self expression right there, I tell ya.  There are some boring "intellectual" rappers like Common and the Roots that seem designed to make white, tweed coat wearing college students feel like they're getting the "urban experience", but the mainstream face of hip hop, which became the mainstream of face of black America, is not exactly the most positive thing in the world.

With that said, aside from the fact that, in 2015, the majority of people who listen to rap are actually white people and the fact that Ben Carson doesn't seem to be particularly in touch with the inner city black community, I'm to wonder, what exactly he was aiming to accomplish with this little ad campaign, aside for getting a good laugh.  Somewhere somehow the idea got implanted into Ben Carson's head that he could reach the young black yoof with a 58 second rap song in which he has some guy nobody's ever heard of say, ahem:

Vote and support Ben Carson
If you want our President to be awesome

What... the... fuck.

Ben Carson doesn't even rap!  He just says a bunch of stuff about personal responsibility, hard work, creativity, innovation and how all of that will get us on the right track.  I'm just shaking my head at the stupidity.  Let's just say for a sec, Ben, that you DO win over Deandre and his boyz with the solid groove and Mr. Mogul's AMAZING rapping skills, you sure as HAYELL ain't gonna win 'em over with the message, 'less of course you throw in something about legalizing kush and allowing the kidz to carry gats around without being harassed by the fuzz.  Word to yo motha.

When Bibi Met Barry

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was in Washington DC today for a meeting with not-BFF Barack Obama, and according to Bibi, it went ok! Two Times of Israel articles report that Obama didn't ask for a freeze on settlement construction, and that some sort of "expanded military aid" was agreed upon. As for that little matter of the new communications director who called Obama an anti-Semite, it wasn't even mentioned.

"I did not feel any tension,” Bibi said. “Both the tone and the substance of the meeting were in a spirit of being productive."

Bibi may be feeling sanguine about all this, but I'm not so sure. (And of course it's possible that Bibi isn't so sure either, but is too good a politician to say so.)

For instance: one of the things Obama and Netanyahu agreed upon is a "series of practical steps by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to calm tensions and prevent further escalation of hostilities."

Really? What "series of steps" has Abbas agreed to? He wasn't even there. Or is Obama now empowered by the Palestinians to make deals on their behalf? And why must both Israelis and Palestinians "calm tensions" when it's only Palestinians who are inflaming them?

The TOI article also reports that "before departing for Washington, Netanyahu was reportedly set to unveil to Obama a series of goodwill gestures aimed at the Palestinians."

And why do the Israelis need to make "goodwill gestures" to the people who have been stabbing them and running them over for the past two months? Is there something I'm missing here?

It sounds like Bibi has accepted the "moral equivalence" crap sandwich with a smile.

Meanwhile, Obama seems to be sorely lacking in self-awareness: “It’s no secret that the security environment in the Middle East has deteriorated in many areas," he said before the meeting, neglecting to mention that his policies are a big reason for that deterioration.

He continued: "And as I’ve said repeatedly, the security of Israel is one of my top foreign policy priorities. And that’s expressed itself not only in words, but in deeds.”

This is risible. Obama may not be an anti-Semite, but he's no fan of Israel's, and there are plenty of "words and deeds" to prove that.

Always Judge a Book by Its Cover

I'm a degenerate who drinks a lot and sleeps with loose - err, I mean empowered - women.  I'm probably not the first person you would expect to be reading books by Mark Levin.  But, there I am, blasting Blue Oyster Cult or the Dictators while reading Mr. Levin's treatise on how to save the United States for future generations.

On Halloween, I brought back a cute punk rock girl to my place and, the next morning, she was looking through my piles of books, CDs, comics and horror magazines and, under Jim Goad's The Redneck Manifesto was Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin.  Although she more than likely would not have known what it is, I said, "don't look at that.  It's boring political crap" and quickly put it under more books.

Let me start over before I forget what I'm supposed to be writing about.

I'm a fan of Taki's Magazine, the online conservative blog started by paleoconservative journalist Taki Theodoracopulos and criticized for its completely un-PC, tell it like it is, approach.  The blog has come under fire for articles such as John Derbyshire's The Talk: Nonblack Version, which led to his dismissal from the writing staff of the National Review, Theodoracopulos' own support for the Greek far-right Nationalist group Golden Dawn and the magazine's employment of David Cole, who was kicked out of other conservative circles allegedly for being a Holocaust revisionist in spite being both Jewish and an ardent Israel supporter.

Yet to call it racist on that alone is the type of foolishness reserved by the leftist media.

Arrghh, I'm rambling...

Yesterday I was at the West Bloomfield public library and this guy was trying to get me to sign a petition to put on the ballot to vote on raising corporate taxes to pay for roads.  Aside from firing off pro-Sanders propaganda at a furious rate without letting me get a word in edgewise, he said that the reason places like Detroit, Baltimore and the south side of Chicago are such shitholes is because of corporations, and not at all because of the people who live there and how the crime rate and state of disrepair are not going to change by liberal policies which encourage the crime rate and state of disrepair.

A few weeks ago I saw a group live and, after their set, their adorable singer/keyboardist made an anti-Trump joke about his alleged racism, while also remarking that she was initially scared to drive into Detroit.  What exactly was she scared of?  Could it be that she was scared of the Detroit Institute of Science, of Wayne State University or of Detroit Brewing Co.?  Of course not, this allegedly anti-racist, Trump hater was afraid of the crime, or more specifically she was afraid of blacks.

She was afraid of muggings or shootings that are perpetrated by a significant segment of a minority group, who, for some reason, populate the worst parts of cities.  It's not the blacks she's afraid of, of course; it's just the crime.  White people commit crimes too, ya know... and, they TOO are intimidating when walking around in baggy, ghetto attire.  Except that they're not.

When I was in Baltimore, MD, out to see Maryland Deathfest, I walked three miles from the venue to the dumpy punk house we were staying at.  The majority of the population is black.  One woman asked for a light to which I said I didn't have one because I don't smoke.  She said, "that's okay, sweety."  Another person asked if I'm "looking for anything."  My answer was, "no, man, I'm good, thanks."  Did I cross the street to avoid the locals a couple times?  Yep.

One of my friends recalled a story where an allegedly homeless man asked someone he knew for some change.  The only catch was that he had to do it "around the corner."  He shot the guy he was asking change from in the kneecaps.  Another friend of mine, a Chaldean named Matt, was robbed at gunpoint at the Metro PCS store he works at and the man fired a shot into a wall, a warning shot.  This same man was also part of a group of people who went on a murder spree in other, nicer parts of the Metro Detroit area.

I live in an upper middle class neighborhood primarily dominated by rich, snobby, stuck up Jews and overly macho, greasy haired middle easterners called Chaldeans, who tailgate you if you're driving five over the speed limit and turn poker games into bullying contests.  If I see a black person in this area, especially wearing nice, upper middle class, white people clothes, I'm not scared one bit.  Although the move to put section 8 housing in our area might change the dynamic of this 1950s style, Leave It to Beaver neighborhood.  Jury's out on that one.

People may defy your expectations - after all, I'm the punk rock Mark Levin reader - but typically they do not.  The girl with the dreadlocks and tattoos is going to be a sex-positive feminist who thinks that if you want a relationship and don't approve of her jumping from cock to cock, you're supporting the patriarchy.  She probably considers herself polyamorous, bisexual and gender neutral, rather than simply mentally ill.  The Indian customers at your store will want to haggle with you.  The black people you serve at the restaurant won't tip you well.  The super hot blonde you're taking out on a date won't know a single nominee for the Republican party.  The Arab who lives in Dearborn more than likely hates Jews.  And the Asians, aforementioned Indians and Jews have really good careers in technology, law or medical field and many are part of that envied 1%.

Why can't people say this stuff?  I dunno.  Who cares.  Arm yourself with knowledge (and an automatic) and you'll be a lot safer when you go out in the world.  Also don't be a "cool" white person by deliberately living in the shittiest part of town and realize that the reason burbs, such as Detroit-bordering Ferndale with liberal arty hipsters are safe is because cops are profiling people who look "suspicious."  Also, if a homeless man asks me to get him a 40 at the liquor store, I typically do because I'm a nice guy.

Making Sure That No One Falls Through the Cracks

I was struck by this weird headline story out of Wyoming.

First of all, AOL is still around? I thought we left them back in the 90's, I guess I will have to dig out my disk and see if I have enough hours left to read the story.

Secondly, the chasm was found while hunting for antelope. Is that still a thing? I thought we left it back in the 9th century B.C.E.

What it really shows is that our country is being ripped apart. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives just see things so differently that it is hard to have reasonable discussions anymore. But one thing should still unite us and that is concern for the most vulnerable in our society. Let's leave poverty out of this discussion for the moment. Surely we can all agree that foster children, the persistently mentally ill, disabled veterans, and the elderly deserve some help from society to make sure that they have their basic needs taken care of.

Liberals will say that we need to increase funding for entitlement programs, and pay more to those caring for these populations. Conservatives will say that we need to make the existing systems more efficient and accountable, and there is truth to both of these claims. But neither is actually happening, and even the conversation isn't happening. We have had close to fifteen hours of presidential debates already and not one minute has been dedicated to this topic. Can we stand by knowing that children are being abused, veterans are dying, elderly people are starving, and the suicide rate is climbing at an alarming rate. That this is happening in our society is a terrible reflection on us. None of these problems is easy to solve, but how can we not even try?

There is no lobby for this, television programs don't earn ratings by asking politicians about it, and to be honest these are not high voting populations; but at the very least what we can do is demand answers from our representatives.

Let us make a commitment that we will raise these issues with our elected representatives. Ask them what are you doing to make sure that foster children get the safety and nurturing that they deserve? What will you do to make sure that those suffering with mental illness have access to quality affordable treatment? What will you do to make sure that veterans have access to the medical care that they need? What will you do to make sure that elderly people can be safe and cared for without being forced to give up all of their worldly possessions?

There may not be many issues that everyone can come together on, an there are other groups in need; but let's start at a basic level with these populations. We can all agree that they need our support and even if we can't agree on solutions let's agree to look for them and talk about them until we find solutions. Doing nothing is dangerous, not only for these people, but for our own souls, and once we start finding solutions for these basic things we can work toward the more difficult issues like figuring out why the ground is opening up beneath us.

Tolerance? We don't need no stinking tolerance.

Recently, one of our writers, wrote an article entitled "What IS Worse: Socialist Snake Oil or Sociopathic Socialist Snake Oil?". As always he was witty and provocative. His points were spot on about the Democratic Party. What I found most enlightening was the response by the left to the article. One lady asked:
"What scares you so about a man who calls himself a Democratic Socialist, which is about the equivalent of a liberal democrat?"
The question itself is so ignorant, but one does not need a whole lot of knowledge to recognize that that particular party was the cause of the second world war. I would suggest that people read the origins of the American Democratic Party, because it may shine light on how far they have come from their origins. The Democratic Party has finalized its push as the socialist party of America.
The Democratic-Republican Party was the American political party in the 1790s of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison formed in opposition to the centralizing policies of the new Federalist party.
But I digress. The most silly comments came from people who said:
"Which one doesn't believe in creationism, talking snakes and dinosaurs and men living together?"
"Yes, the alternatives are people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old or pretend to think that or pretend not to know."
I am a religious and observant Jew. I tend to take most of the book of Genesis as purely allegory and not literal at all. However, besides being a straw man argument against Republicans, who cares what people theologically believe? Does the left's tolerance end with religious Christians and Jews who take the Bible literally? Does believing in things that the left seems silly make bad policy, or do people focus on that to distract from the left truly harmful policies?

I would suggest that the people on the left who are offended by people pointing out that their party has two major socialists look in the mirror. It happens to be the truth! Like any good Jewish guy, let me end with a quote from the New Testament; The Truth Shall Set You Free.

Doubling Down

Fun thought exercise: Imagine President Obama's reaction if Bibi Netanyahu had said that Arabs' "filthy feet" were defiling the Temple Mount.

I know, right?

Yet a similar comment from Mahmoud Abbas went virtually unnoticed by the White House. That's the same White House that was furious with Netanyahu for his "racist" comment about Arabs during the Israeli elections last year. You may remember Bibi's unforgivable slander: he urged Likud voters to get to the polls because the Joint Arab List party was getting its voters out to the polls.

The liberal Jews who still vote Democrat assure us that Barack Obama is Israel's best friend. (He's even referred to himself as the "first Jewish president" because of his love for an Israel that, as far as I can tell, never existed in real life.) They insist that the problem with the alliance is not the Obama Administration, but the Likud Party and its stiff-necked prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. In this, they are joined by their Labour-voting brothers and sisters in Israel.

But that explanation never made sense to me. That's why I was glad to see that former Obama advisor Dennis Ross, who was oddly silent during the Iran deal negotiations but now has a book to sell, confirms what a lot of us have always thought. As Jennifer Rubin says in the Washington Post:
It turns out the Iran deal really does not stop Iran from getting the bomb. It turns out Obama was guilty of the bigotry of low expectations, never really wanting to hold the Palestinians to account. And from the get-go, he sought to shove Israel away from the United States. It was not Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “fault” that the relationship deteriorated. It was by design.

Which brings us back to "filthy feet" vs "get out the vote." It's obvious that Obama holds Israel to a double standard. I'm not asking him to stop it; I'm just asking him to admit it.