Why Do Liberals Love Hamas So Much?
It's not all that mysterious. Leftists are angry people -- angry at the world about them, their own country and society most particularly. But Israel is very much a chip off the block of successful Western society. It is prosperous and successful and tolerant in many ways. It is almost an outpost of America. And the Left hate it for that. So at a minimum they will not support Israel and they love it that Hamas really hates Israel. They see Hamas hate as akin to their hate.
Hamas hate is in fact a different hate. Both in the Quran and in the Hadiths, Mohammed condemned Jews, even though he stole large parts of their holy book. Even the Arabic word for god -- "Allah" -- is a steal from the Hebrew word for a god -- "Eloah". So Hamas hate is religious hate. But any hate against Israel is ok to the Left
In the days of Harry Truman, the Left supported Israel. But since then Israel has become triumphant and strong -- and that is unforgiveable
As reports of Hamas war crimes, inhuman atrocity, and medieval Muhammadist brutality continue to stream into our consciousness, a steady parade of terror apologists bugle their inveterate support for all things barbaric.
We’ve heard unimaginably callous statements from The Squad, Ivy League students, and the “social justice” organization BLM regarding the manifold cruelties perpetrated on Israeli citizens. Hamas swine have carried out their diabolical tasks with a relish not witnessed since the genocidal mania displayed by Hitler, Mengele, and Himmler.
Then, as now, the usual suspects have appeared to offer their heartfelt support for the forces of tyranny and homicide. The New York Times famously lent the considerable weight of its commentary to the budding dictator and would-be second coming of Alexander the Great — Adolph Hitler. You’d have thought the Times learned a lesson with Adolph, but the Grey Lady’s sages swooned for the Iron Curtain and one of history’s most accomplished butchers, Joseph Stalin.
And, as the leading publication of record, the Times bore the banner of hate, racism, and bigotry for a media complex now completely devoted to the mechanism of statist propaganda. Hate for anyone guilty of naughty thinking; racism as a tool of political and social subjugation; and bigotry against any democratizing influence that threatens the hegemony of elitism.
Liberalism is legion — finding a host and corporeal form in the Democrat party, our institutions of “higher learning,” and in the legacy media. And, as Christ said speaking of another demonic spirit, “This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.” (Matthew 9:29)
There really are only two worldviews. One view acknowledges the fundamentally fallen, depraved nature of man. The other views mankind as containing a spark of Divinity. Basically good, but prone to do evil as the result of outside forces shaping human nature. This is the fundamental presupposition of Utopianism which has spawned every totalitarian regime since the Tower of Babel.
Think about every “people’s movement” throughout history. The promise of heaven on earth, built brick by brick into a towering ziggurat of hubris, is always the same. If only we could construct a government with benevolent and supremely intellectual autocrats, we could bask in the light and comity of a blossoming humanity fostered by an enlightened citizenry educated, or as Hillary would put it, “deprogrammed” out of every vice. This is the simpering stupidity of liberalism. Sixty million murdered soviet citizens speak most eloquently to that point.
At the very center of the utopian model is the exercise of centralized power over a subjugated populace. The flavors vary, but it’s all the same slurry of empty calories and sugar. Democrats lust for bigger government because it represents movement toward the ultimate objective, their complete and total control, effectuated by their radiant intellect, and performing the necessary modulations of social control to optimize, support, and perpetuate the metabolic functions of the state.
Just as in the Matrix, liberalism’s Kingdom Come is an exalted state that utilizes individuals as batteries—a disposable and renewable resource in the service of its own biological function.
Hamas, and terrorist organizations like it, represent the exercise of sheer power, both physical and psychological. The anarchy it creates excites the totalitarian spirit and inflames the insatiable lust of statists who witness the transformation of the geopolitical space in real time. They are titillated by the destruction of democratic processes and institutions, and are pressed beyond measure by their exuberance—excusing the inexcusable in a frenetic attempt to publicly reconcile barbarism with their utopian vision.
The terrorism of Hamas is an opportunity to see statists for what they really are. Whether in academe, politics, or pop culture, they can’t help but cheer the slaughter and mayhem, because secretly, they’d blithely sacrifice whole continents to their benevolent, all consuming governmental god.
Make no mistake, they’d feed naughty thinkers wholesale into the furnace if they could only eradicate the people’s tool of power—the gun.
It’s no coincidence that Israel is the Middle East’s only democracy. An oasis in a sea of totalitarian Muhammadists. Israel is the repository of the Biblical principles that make the civil society possible, the fundamental social precondition for democratic republics. Israel is the political embodiment of the Biblical truth that where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
America shares the same theological and philosophical traditions as Israel. Our founding fathers understood that man is fallen, bent toward evil, and never to be implicitly trusted with temporal authority. This understanding is the reason for the meticulous construction of checks and balances in our Constitution. It’s the reason we have enjoyed liberty and the ability to pursue happiness for over two centuries.
Liberalism maintains a view of humanity that is antithetical to what the Bible teaches. And, not coincidentally has produced social systems and political structures that have dehumanized and transformed the individual into a resource for the state to use and dispose of according to the capricious inclination of dictators and despots.
What they don’t want you to understand is that organizations like Hamas are, in their view, agents of change, catalysts in the struggle of the proletariat in a Marxist materialistic dialectic. Statism, Utopianism, and Marxism are all kissing cousins, and that’s why you often find them making common cause across the geopolitical spectrum. China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and other countries that make up the modern axis of evil share a commonality as ancient as Babylon—they hate the idea of the individual, created in the image of God, imbued with inalienable rights that supersede the interests of the state.
Why do liberals seem to love terrorism so much? Because the significance of the individual is less than nothing in comparison to their political ambition. Of course, they may not admit to themselves the staggering scale of their own inhumanity. But, that’s the whole problem isn’t it? “The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnnantz/2023/10/17/why-do-liberals-love-hamas-so-much-n2629938
************************************************Religious Freedom Again in Legal Peril in Finland
“It is not for the district court to interpret biblical concepts.”
Such was the judgment of the Finnish court tasked with ruling on the case of Päivi Räsänen, a 28-year member of the Finnish parliament, former minister of the interior, medical doctor, grandmother, and Christian prosecuted for “hate speech.”
Her “crime”? Publicly sharing her faith-based views of human sexuality.
In the spring of 2022, Räsänen was unanimously acquitted by the court. The court even ordered the prosecution to pay more than 60,000 euros in legal costs.
That was a tremendous victory for free speech with reverberations heard around the world.
Unfortunately, the decision did not satisfy the Finnish state prosecutors, who appealed the “not guilty” verdict on the basis that the court reached the wrong conclusion.
For simply sharing her faith-based convictions, Räsänen, 64, went back on trial on Aug. 31 and Sept. 1, with the support of the Christian legal organization ADF International. A verdict in her case is expected in the coming months.
The case dates back to 2019, when Räsänen posted on Twitter, questioning her church’s official sponsorship of the Helsinki “Pride 2019” event. Her tweet included a snapshot of a Bible verse.
Following the tweet, authorities dug into her past, investigating a pamphlet that she authored for her church in 2004 on sexuality and marriage.
She subsequently faced three criminal charges—for the tweet, the pamphlet, and for comments she had made on a 2019 radio show. At that point, it was becoming clear that the basic human right to free speech was not alive and well in Finland.
Following a criminal trial and countless lies spread by the media, Räsänen has become a global champion in the fight for free speech and religious freedom.
It is a scandal worthy of international attention that this case has been prosecuted not just once, but twice. The first, unanimous ruling affirmed what we all know; namely, Räsänen committed no crime in exercising her fundamental freedoms.
Free speech is a myth if religious speech is not protected. The restriction of peaceful speech has no place in a free society.
This case demonstrates how censorship starts to tear apart democracies like their dictatorial counterparts. After all, Finland regularly receives high marks for its fidelity to the rule of law, but how free is a country where the full force of the law can be weaponized to silence peaceful speech?
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/10/16/religious-freedom-again-in-legal-peril-in-finland
************************************************Trans Access to Girls’ Restrooms and Related Legal Claims Fail in Federal Court
A federal district court in Idaho just declined to halt the operation of a state law mandating that public schools separate their bathrooms and housing accommodations by biological sex.
The commonsense decision Thursday comes as more and more federal courts across the country conclude that state laws preventing the expansion of “gender identity” rights are constitutional.
The growing line of precedent cabining transgender arguments is good news for those who understand the category of biological sex to be more important than a subjective state of mind—which is the entire premise of gender identity.
For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld Tennessee’s law banning so-called gender-affirming care for minors in the state; the 11th Circuit upheld Alabama’s law prohibiting the same.
Neither federal court found the state laws to be a violation of a parent’s constitutional due process right to raise his or her children as desired. The 11th Circuit also held this year that a school’s sex-segregated bathroom policy isn’t a violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause because it treats all students equally, regardless of sex.
In Idaho, in Roe v. Critchfield, a federal district court judge earlier had issued a temporary restraining order against the law to maintain the status quo. But after considering additional arguments by counsel, the court declined to block the law, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proving that they had a substantial likelihood of ultimately winning the case.
However, the court did allow the legal challenge by an anonymous transgender student, known as Rebecca Roe, to proceed to trial. The judge said it was a “difficult case,” and this “area of law (and societal policy) is evolving.”
Roe, a 12-year-old biological boy who sought to use the girls’ bathroom at a middle school within the Boise, Idaho, school district, filed a lawsuit to invalidate Idaho’s law, known as SB 1100. (Having been the mother of two 12-year-old boys, I know full well that 12-year-old boys are hormonal cretins. What could possibly go wrong? *Eyeroll*)
Although the law requires public schools to maintain sex-separated bathrooms and overnight accommodations, it provides an option for schools to make a “reasonable accommodation” to any student who is “unwilling or unable to use a multioccupancy restroom or changing facility designated for the person’s sex.”
Dissatisfied with the accommodation carve-out, Roe claimed that the Idaho law violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Roe’s right to privacy.
The Constitution’s equal protection clause requires that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
When considering a claim premised on sex or gender discrimination, a court must apply intermediate scrutiny review. That is, the government must establish that the challenged law furthers an important government interest and the means chosen to advance that interest must be substantially related to that interest.
In his opinion, Chief Judge David Nye found that the privacy and safety of students were important government interests, and that separating bathrooms based on sex was substantially related to those interests.
Nye also was not convinced that Roe’s claim was likely to succeed under Title IX—the federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program that receives federal funding. Nye wrote that Title IX specifically allows for sex-separate facilities, and as a result, SB 1100 did not violate Title IX, but rather, adhered to it.
As for Roe’s claim that the law violated his right to privacy, Nye wrote that the issue was whether a “student must, against his or her wishes, be forced to change (or undertake other private duties) in the presence of someone of the opposite sex.”
The law, Nye determined, wasn’t based on any animus against transgender students, but rather was enacted to protect the legitimate privacy interests of the sexes. A statute can lawfully classify individuals based on biological sex without unlawfully discriminating based on transgender status.
Nye’s decision also hearkened to the 6th Circuit’s decision in upholding the Tennessee law banning “gender-affirming” medical interventions for minors.
The judge wrote:
The court, however, must stay in its lane. It cannot provide guidance on how elected officials should navigate these difficult situations. It can only decide whether the action they have taken withstands constitutional scrutiny. As the 6th Circuit aptly noted just a few weeks ago with respect to regulations about medical care for transgender minors: ‘[L]ife-tenured judges construing a difficult-to-amend Constitution should be humble and careful about announcing new substantive due process or equal protection rights that limit accountable elected officials from sorting out these medical, social, and policy challenges.’
The case now will proceed to a full trial on the merits of Rebecca Roe’s claims.
The outcome of this latest legal challenge based on “gender identity,” albeit a preliminary one, is a timely reminder that, as Nye wrote, “in a pluralistic society … everyone cannot win every time.”
******************************************************
Big news. Australia has become one of the world leaders when it comes to men suffering false allegations
A new YouGov survey, involving 9432 people across eight countries, found Australia was the worst country, after India, when people were asked if they had been falsely accused of abuse.
What’s going on here? The answer is simple. It’s the feminist capture of our family law system.
The YouGov survey showed false accusations in Australia are more likely to be made as part of a child custody dispute than anywhere else in the world – they are 41 per cent of such allegations in this country.
Overall, the survey showed 80 per cent of victims of false allegations in this country are male and almost a third (30 per cent) of people surveyed know a victim of false allegations made in the last year.
For decades, feminist ideologues have been manipulating the family law system by claiming that all women and their children are at risk of attack by violent ex-partners.
This sets the scene for women to make false violence allegations — a tactic which works a treat to give women control of the divorce process, denying men any real role in their children’s lives.
It’s a brilliant ploy, which feminists have been systematically cementing in place. Soon their ship will come in.
Labor’s draconian new family law bill is about to sail through the Senate, with the Greens joining forces with Labor to enshrine women’s absolute power to use false allegations to destroy men’s relationships with their children.
Having long been internationally celebrated for protecting the right of children to care from both divorced parents, this new Act will mean Australia will return to the grim days of mostly sole mother custody.
This is the most significant social change in recent history, impacting millions of families across the country. Current estimates suggest there will be more than 300,000 family breakups involving children in the next decade.
It is just astonishing that this is all passing unchallenged, indeed almost unnoticed.
Well, perhaps not. Given Australian feminists’ brilliantly orchestrated march through our institutions, we shouldn’t be surprised that these powerful ideologues have cowed most of our parliament and media into silence.
Silence, that is, about the truth of what is happening here, which is nothing to do with the feminist narrative that the new bill is about keeping children safe.
Their critical goal has been to set aside the many decades of international evidence showing it is harmful for children to grow up without dads.
That was the message enshrined in the Howard government’s landmark 2006 law act promoting joint parental responsibility.
It was passed with bipartisan support and proved a real hit with the public — “overwhelmingly supported by parents, legal professionals and family relationship service professionals,” according to research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Feminist scholars were determined to resist this recognition of the vital role of dads in the family. They leapt into action pouring out articles claiming sharing care risked exposing children to violence.
This set the scene for Julia Gillard’s proudly feminist government to remove the 2006 penalties for perjury and place violence accusations front and centre of decision-making about sharing of care of children.
Her government also greatly expanded the definition of domestic “violence” to include emotional and psychological abuse, threatening behaviour etc, adding enormously to the list of families precluded from court-approved shared care.
Now the war was on, with magistrates’ courts overwhelmed with false violence accusations which most magistrates have acknowledged are being used to gain strategic advantage in child custody matters.
A survey of 38 magistrates in Queensland found 74 per cent agreed restraining orders are often used for tactical purposes.
Similarly, 90 per cent of 68 NSW magistrates agreed restraining orders are often sought as tactical devices in family law disputes, “serving to deprive former partners of contact with their children”.
In a national survey of over 2500 respondents, more than half agreed that “women going through custody battles often make up or exaggerate claims of domestic violence in order to improve their case”.
People know this is happening — even police are speaking out about the enormous amount of their time consumed by false allegations.
Two years ago the Queensland Police Union made a submission to a family law inquiry pointing out that false allegations of domestic violence are regularly used to gain advantage in family law disputes, with members of the police force sometimes finding themselves on the receiving end.
In some areas of Queensland, domestic violence takes up to 80 per cent of police time. Note that in NSW, domestic violence assaults make up only 4.8 per cent of major crimes but take up 50-70 per cent of police time.
That’s the current reality. But now, without any mandate from the electorate and ignoring recommendations from a series of inquiries, this Labor government is taking matters a huge leap further.
They are wiping out any mention in the law of children’s rights to two parents in their lives, watering down the joint presumption of shared parental responsibility and ditching the requirement to consider shared or substantial care in parenting plans — the key elements which promote the sharing of parenting.
Under the new Act shared care is only to be considered “when it is safe to do so”.
What’s absolutely shocking is that these momentous changes passed largely unnoticed through the lower house of parliament, with remarkably little protest.
It wasn’t until the legislation came under fire this week with questions in the Senate that Michaelia Cash let fly with a devastating attack on Labor for stripping away the key parenting sections of the bill. Labor was caught with their pants down but the press gallery chose not to notice.
And no one dared mention the war — except for brave Pauline Hanson, a lone voice daring to speak about false allegations.
Everyone else ignored the elephant in the room, knowing our feminist-led media would attack anyone who told the truth about what is going on here. The domestic violence card worked brilliantly to silence all proper debate about the bill.
Hanson was the only one with the guts to point out what every judge, magistrate, lawyer and police officer knows to be the case — that these changes to the law will bring poorer outcomes for children, a fresh flood of new accusations against fathers, more conflict between divorced parents, a huge surge in litigation as men pay out to try to see their children and more suicides for men as they realise that their chances of a fair hearing in an already biased court system will now be further reduced.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment