Tuesday, April 23, 2013

A Satanic religion at work

I’m not really in the mood to write a column. The reason why I’m in a foul disposition is I just saw the picture, taken a few minutes before the Boston blast, of the Muslim POS, better known as “Suspect #2”, dropping off his backpack filled with a pressure cooker bomb right behind eight-year-old Martin Richard, his little sister Jane, his mom Denise and scores of others. This image made me both sick and pissed off.

Minutes after this picture was captured, as we now know, Martin would have nails and buckshot blast his body to smithereens, Jane would have her little leg severed from her frame and their mom would have shrapnel penetrate her head at 3300 feet per second -- leaving both her and little Jane clinging to life and Martin dead on the street. This left me thinking: “What kind of jacked up people do this kind of crap?”

Well, by and large, it is the “Religion of Peace” who does this kind of crap with great regularity, that’s who.

If you’re not hearing this on the evening news please allow me to inform you that two Muslim young men did this. Not right-wingers, as Chris Matthews and Peter Bergen predicted early on. Not Evangelicals or Catholics as the DHS has warned Americans repeatedly to be on the look out for. Nor was it your generic “angry white bogey man” that Salon’s writer David Sirota had hoped; but at least two male Muslims between the ages of 18-35.

I say “at least two” because early on there was a Saudi national that everyone was real interested in who, by the way, will be deported next week. This is the same cat that Michelle Obama secretly visited in the hospital last Thursday. I sure wish that young Saudi male could hang out a few more days here in the states and we could have someone seriously interrogate him; but alas, Big Government says he’s got to go back home and quick.

How quaint. And how strange…

As stated at the outset of this screed, I’m in no mood to write. However, I would like to wrap this piece up by saying two more things: One -- my prayers are with the victims of this baseless slaughter of innocent human lives by Muslim men, again. And Two – you can bet your last buck that if I see a backpack dropped off by a religion of peacer behind a crowd of kids I’m going to tackle that mule.

Call me judgmental.


It’s hard being right all the time

Long ago, I argued that the end result of Lawrence v. Texas, and ultimately the legalization of gay marriage, would ineluctably lead to calls to polygamous marriage, and in some fringe cases, incest. Here I am arguing it in 2005. What I was told at the time, essentially was:

    "Ah, the famed ’slippery slope’ argument.  It goes like this: "Opening the concept of marriage to any interpretation will lead to a slippery slope for any type of relationship to emerge as the new norm.

    This is patently offensive. It says that if a loving gay couple can marry, we will have to allow a zookeeper somewhere to marry his monkey.  Then, we have to allow Jethro to marry 8 women.  We have to allow dad to marry his daughter."

But that response was stupid. Because it was essentially, "Your artificial definition of marriage is monstrous. But my artificial definition of marriage will hold, impervious, for as long as the sun burns hot in space."

But, I was right, of course. Now that gay marriage seems to be becoming fixed as an accepted right, we find ourselves faced with the next logical push for expansion of marriage. In Slate today, Jillian Keenan has penned an article urging the legalization of polygamy. Indeed, according to her, it’s a feminist imperative.

    "While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families."

It will empower women! Indeed, look at how empowered women are in all the polygamous societies that currently exist in the world. And in polygamous societies all throughout history.

Oh. Wait. It’s the exact opposite of that, isn’t it?

Anyway, the argument goes that, under the feministy, empowering regime of legal polygamy it won’t be patriarchal polygyny. No, a woman can have two or three husbands! Because, you know, men like nothing better than letting their wives screw other guys. That’s just human nature.

In any event, the definition of marriage is plastic, you see. it’s just a social construct and it can mean anything we want it to mean. And there’s nothing inherently better in one definition of "marriage" or another. It’s all good! Family is family, right? So, like, whatever.

But, let’s forget the argument about whether polygamy is a good or a bad thing. Ultimately the point is that I was, of course, right to argue that we’d end up with arguments demanding a right to polygamy and, despite gay marriage advocates calling me a monster for even suggesting such an unseemly slippery slope argument, well…here we are.

Eight years ago, the slippery slope polygamy argument was just a load of Rick Santorum, wingnut, Christer bullsh*t. Today, it turns out it was just a logical prediction that was correct, and entirely foreseeable.


Germany Cracks Down on Critics of Mega-Mosque

The Bavarian branch of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), has placed under state surveillance German activists accused of fomenting hate against Muslims due to their opposition to the construction of a mega-mosque in Munich.

The move to silence critics of the mosque for being “unconstitutional” was announced by Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann in a press conference on April 12, and represents an unprecedented threat to the exercise of free speech in post-reunification Germany.

Herrmann made the announcement while presenting an annual report about threats to democratic order in Germany. A seven-minute video of the press conference with subtitles in English can be viewed here.

Herrmann singled out a citizen’s movement called Die Freiheit Bayern (Freedom Bavaria), as well as the Munich branch of a highly popular free speech blog called Politically Incorrect (PI), which focuses on topics related to immigration, multiculturalism and Islam in Germany.

Both groups have been drawing public attention to plans to build a massive mosque complex known as the Center for Islam in Europe-Munich (ZIE-M). The 6,000 m² (65,000 ft²) project, which will cost an estimated €40 million ($51 million), is designed to be a key strategic platform for spreading Islam throughout Europe.

Speculation is rife that the Persian Gulf Emirate of Qatar — which is building Wahhabi mega-mosques at a breakneck pace across Europe — will be financing the project in Munich.

Members of Freedom Bavaria and PI (German equivalents to the American Tea Party movement, roughly speaking) are, according to Herrmann, “right-wing extremists who increasingly are establishing citizen’s initiatives, in order to attract the attention of German voters, under the guise of civil involvement. In this way they use, for example, the discussion about the construction of mosques to arouse, in an anti-constitutional way, prejudices against Muslims and Islam.”

Herrmann continued: “In Bavaria, this involves the Freedom Bavaria Party and the Munich chapter of Politically Incorrect (PI). Their activities are aimed, inter alia, at fomenting sweeping fears of Muslims and to disparage them because of their belief that Islam is a threat to the rule of law. As a result, religious freedom, human dignity and the principle of equal treatment as key components of our liberal democratic order are being violated.”

Herrmann reserved special vitriol for Michael Stürzenberger, the chairman of Freedom Bavaria and the spokesman for the Munich chapter of PI, who is guilty of “initiating a campaign for a public petition against the Center for Islam in Europe-Munich as a platform for promoting anti-Islamic propaganda, whether on the Internet or at public events.”

Stürzenberger’s petition has garnered more than 20,000 signatures; he needs a total of 30,000 signatures to force a public referendum on the mosque project.

German intelligence began monitoring Freedom Bavaria and PI at the end of March 2013, and Bavaria is the first state in Germany to classify so-called Islam-haters as extremists, according to Burkhard Körner, the head of Bavarian intelligence.

By contrast, German intelligence stopped monitoring Benjamin Idriz — the Macedonian imam behind the Munich mega-mosque project who has unsettling links to radical Islamic elements — more than two years ago.

Not surprisingly, Stürzenberger and his supporters view the situation rather differently than do Herrmann and the powers that be. In a blog post on PI, Stürzenberger describes his predicament as “as an incomprehensible warping of reality: those who want to protect democracy and fundamental law before an anti-constitutional ideology [Islam] are now being pilloried. Does anyone question that political correctness has completely infested Germany?”

Indeed, the crackdown on Freedom Bavaria and PI appears to be part of a year-long smear campaign led by a triple alliance of German multicultural elites, sundry Muslim groups and members of the mainstream media, who have been relentless in their efforts to discredit the so-called counter-jihad movement (also known as the “Islamophobes”) in Germany.

Opinion polls show that growing numbers of ordinary German citizens are worried about the consequences of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged mass immigration from Muslim countries.

Germans are especially concerned about the refusal of millions of Muslim immigrants to integrate into German society, as well as the emergence of a parallel legal system in Germany based on Islamic Sharia law.

In an effort to reverse this rising tide of negative public opinion, the guardians of German multiculturalism have been working overtime to regain the initiative by accusing the critics of Islam of engaging in hate speech to try to intimidate the so-called “new right” into silence.

The media campaign has been led by two financially troubled newspapers, the Berliner Zeitung and its sister publication, the Frankfurter Rundschau, as well as Der Spiegel, a left-leaning magazine based in Hamburg that has long served as the mouthpiece for German multiculturalism.

In a January 4, 2012 interview with the Berliner Zeitung and the Frankfurter Rundschau, Manfred Murck, the director of the Hamburg branch of German domestic intelligence, said the owners of anti-Islam blogs “have a disturbed relationship to the democratic constitutional state” and often promote “infringements of human rights protected under our constitution.”

Murck continued: “I also see evidence of criminal relevance, such as making threats and public invitations to crime.” He said criticism of Muslims and Islam constitutes “an attack against the freedom of religion, which is protected by Article 4 of the Basic Law.”

The Berliner Zeitung and Frankfurter Rundschau interview was conducted by Steven Geyer and Jörg Schindler, two propagandists masquerading as journalists who have been leading an ongoing effort to shut down PI, which over the years has grown into a major information resource for Germans concerned about the spread of Islam in their country.

PI’s motto reads “Against the Mainstream, Pro-American, Pro-Israel, Against the Islamization of Europe, For Fundamental Laws and Human Rights” – which encapsulates everything German multiculturalists abhor.

The Berliner Zeitung and the Frankfurter Rundschau, for example, have fomented some hysteria by publishing dozens of agitprop articles, some by Mely Kiyak, a first-generation German whose parents were Turkish-Kurdish immigrants. Kiyak, who calls herself a “political pioneer,” portrays all critics of Islam as hate-mongers.

One article, entitled, “Politically Incorrect: Vulgar, Uninhibited, Racist,” says that, “the Internet portal ‘Politically Incorrect’ is part of an international network of Islam haters and Muslim stalkers. This is confirmed by research conducted by the Frankfurter Rundschau.”

Another article, “PI News: Prototype of the New Right,” links criticism of Islam with anti-Semitism: “The ‘New Right’ has been growing for ten years and has momentum. The blog ‘Politically Incorrect’ shows what the movement looks like. The director of the Center for Research on Anti-Semitism, Wolfgang Benz, sees parallels to anti-Semitism.” Open expressions of anti-Semitism are illegal in post-war Germany; the inference here is that those who criticize Islam are guilty of committing a crime. (Never mind that PI is decidedly pro-Israel.)

Other Berliner Zeitung and Frankfurter Rundschau articles are entitled: “Politically Incorrect: Where the Internet Stinks;” “Rightwing Populists: United in their Hatred of Muslims,” and “Politically Correct Hatred.”

A frenzied article, “Politically Incorrect: Inside the Network of Islam Haters,” asserts: “PI is far more than a harmless website. It is rather a highly conspiratorial organization that works to demonize an entire faith community. It plays a vital role in an international network of those who hate Islam. It provides racists and glorifiers of violence who share the world view of the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik with a forum.”

Spiegel magazine, sifting through a stock of more than 10,000 private emails stolen from PI, published an article, “Politically Incorrect Closely Knit to Far Right Scene,” in which it asserted that the people behind PI are undemocratic and pose a threat to the German constitutional order.

Yet another article, “Germany’s Anti-Muslim Scene: Authorities Debate Surveillance of Islamophobes,” asserts that right-wing populism is a new form of extremism: “There are concerns that the anti-Muslim scene is becoming increasingly dangerous. In essence, the question is whether the hatred of Muslims is enough to endanger freedom of religion and international understanding, or whether it is a radical but legitimate expression of opinion by individual authors within the limits of the constitution.”

Spiegel magazine has worked hard to portray all critics of Islam as belonging to the “far right” even though opinion polls overwhelmingly show that voters from across the political spectrum are concerned about the spread of Islam in Germany.

In Munich, the so-called progressive newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung has been leading the propaganda war against Stürzenberger and those who are concerned about the mega-mosque.

In a commentary entitled “The Dangerous Poison of Hate,” Bernd Kastner, a twenty-something apologist for Islam in Germany, writes: “At last! German intelligence has declared the enemy of Islam, Michael Stürzenberger, to be an extremist. Since late March, the Freedom Bavaria Party and the Munich chapter of Politically Incorrect are being monitored, so they are formally unconstitutional. Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann accuses them of denying the human dignity of Muslims. With their agitation they threaten the peaceful coexistence of people of different backgrounds and religions.”

Kastner, displaying his anti-democratic leanings, continues: “Should there be a referendum about the mega-mosque, it is feared that the mosque, which is so far only an idea, will become a campaign object. That will bring the extremists not only tens of thousands of signatures and addresses of sympathizers, but also votes in the upcoming elections.”

According to PI: “Our work of information is not oriented against Muslims, but against the political ideology of Islam. Muslims are its first victims, most of all women. We want to liberate them from the shackles of this ideology so that they can integrate in our free democratic society…One thing is clear: We will maintain our way consistently and continue unswervingly.”


Having a baby HELPS your social life: British women make an average of NINE new friends after they give birth

Having a baby can actually widen an increase a woman's circle of friends.

While many women report feeling isolated and lonely when their child is very young, new research has shown that they make on average of nine new friends upon the birth of their baby.

The survey showed that while childless women have an average of 13 friends, the number swells to 22 in the year after following the arrival of a child.

In fact it seems that giving birth is seem by some as enhancing to your social life with more than half of the 2,000 mothers polled said it was easier to bond with other women once you became a mother.

It found that 53 per cent of new mothers felt it was surprisingly easy to make friends after having a baby, and 70 per cent of those said it was because they had so much ‘in common’.

The study also found 16 per cent of those who took part in the poll said they had a better social life after having children as they had so much more free time to meet up with people.

Part of this increase in friendship is due to increased interaction with other mothers with nearly half of new mums made friends with other women at a mother and toddler group, while 22 per cent struck up friendships in antenatal classes and a fifth met people through other friends.

Many reported it was easier to bond with other women after having given birth

Perhaps surprisingly, the friendships formed in this time are not superficial or purely for convenience with strong bonds forming over exchanges of views, tips and shared experiences.

Sharing the experience of birth is by far the most popular topic of conversation for new mums – 73 per cent would happily regale new friends with stories about their labour.

Four in ten said they felt more comfortable sharing intimate and personal information with their mum chums who they had only recently met.

Almost four out of ten said they have discussed their post baby sex life with relatively new buddies.

And nearly 80 per cent have poured their heart out about their concerns of being good mum and the guilt over whether to go back to work after being on maternity leave.

One in five have also discussed the baby blues with their fellow mother friends, while other topics for discussion were breast feeding, sleepless nights, nappies and baby ailments.

One in three said they were worried about boring their old friends with constant baby talk – part of the reason why new friendships are formed with other women who are going through the same experience.

A spokeswoman for Natures Purest, the company that commissioned the study, said: 'There is a misconception in society that starting a family will mean you are stuck indoors but it’s simply not true.

'Our research shows the opposite – becoming a mum can do wonders for your social life as there are so many groups and activities to become involved with.

'Having a baby is a life-changing experience, especially if you are a first time mum, so it’s important to have friends in a similar position.

'You need people who can understand what you’re going through and can offer both emotional and practical support – whether you want a shoulder to cry on, a friend to offload on, or just reassurance that you are doing things right.

'Many women whose friendships evolved when their children were young go on to keep the same group of friends throughout their life and as a consequence the youngsters form strong bonds too.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICSDISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: