Follow by Email

Tuesday, December 08, 2015

The Truth About Islam

The following message is not PC.

No one has thought of this strategy to rid the world of Islam.
Tell the truth:
 Islam is a fake religion.
There never was an Allah doing anything,, It's an invention made up by a group of ancient hucksters.
There has never been a REAL Prophet named mohammed.

He didn't exist, certainly not as described by the Quran.
How do we knows this,.. how do we know that there is no muslim god on high encouraging Arabs to kill themselves or innocent people?
EVERYONE KNOWS IT!
It's a stupefying  that the people  that are suffering the most from this unfortunate religion don't somehow snap and say, "Wait a minute..Allah put me on earth to murder innocent people that have a normal amount of skepticism?"
The only thing that Allah and Islam have accomplished is that they have been able to keep so many individuals from progressing and enjoying life.
So, let's try this, 1,2,3, There is no Allah, There never was a prophet named Mohammed.
We were not put on earth to murder innocent people and women weren't created  so that we can have the sex life when we are dead that was not allowed while we are alive.



Zamir Etzioni

Saturday, September 12, 2015

Why do people hate Israel?


<em>Thai-Muslim demonstrators burn an Israeli flag during an anti-Israel protest in front of the Israeli embassy in Bangkok on July 15. Photo by Chaiwat Subprasom/Reuters</em>
Thai-Muslim demonstrators burn an Israeli flag during an anti-Israel protest in front of the Israeli embassy in Bangkok on July 15. Photo by Chaiwat Subprasom/Reuters
We live in a bad world.
There is nothing new about that. The world has been pretty bad since its inception. That’s why God destroyed it and started all over again (with little to show for the new experiment, one might add).
From a moral perspective, look at the world since 2000.
North Korea remains an entire country that is essentially a large concentration camp. 
Tibet, one of mankind’s oldest cultures, continues to be occupied and destroyed by China.
Somalia no longer exists as a country. It is an anarchic state in which the cruelest and strongest (usually one and the same) prevail.
In Congo, between 1998 and 2003, about 5.5 million people were killed — nearly the same as the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust.
In Syria, about 150,000 people have been killed in the last three years, and millions have been rendered homeless. 
In Iraq, there is a mass murder from terror bombings almost every week.
In Mexico, since 2006, approximately 120,000 people have been killed in the country’s drug wars.
Iran, a genocide-advocating theocratic dictatorship, is very near having the capacity to make nuclear weapons.
Christian communities in the Middle East are wiped out; Christians in Nigeria are routinely massacred.
Of course, the 20th century was even bloodier, but we are only in the 15th year of the 21st century. Nevertheless, showing how awful the world is for so many of its inhabitants is not my point. My point is that, despite all this evil and suffering, the world has concentrated its attention overwhelmingly on the alleged evils of one country: Israel.
What makes this so worthy of note is that Israel is among the most humane and free countries on the planet. Moreover, it is the only country in the world that is threatened with annihilation. 
This is the only time in history when people in free countries have sided with a police state against a free state. One cannot name any time in modern history — the only time in history when there have been free societies — when, in a war between a free state and a police state, the free state was deemed the aggressor. That’s because it never happened before Israel and its enemies.
The question, of course, is why?
Why, during a time when a Kenyan mall is blown up, Islamic terrorists massacre Christians in Nigeria and thousands more die in Syria, is the world preoccupied with 600-some Palestinians killed as a direct result of their firing thousands of missiles in order to kill as many Israelis as possible?
Why has obsession with Israel been the case since its inception, and especially since 1967?
It can’t be occupation. China occupies Tibet, and it merits virtually no attention from the world. And Pakistan’s creation, coming at the same time as Israel’s, led to millions of Muslim (and Hindu) refugees. Yet, that country, too, merits no attention. 
There are only two explanations for this moral anomaly.
One is the nearly worldwide embrace of leftist thought and values. According to this way of thinking, Westerners are almost always wrong when they fight Third World countries or groups; and the weaker party, especially if non-Western, is almost always deemed the victim when fighting a stronger, especially Western, group or country. Leftism has replaced “good and evil” with “rich and poor,” “strong and weak,” and “Western (or white) and non-Western (or non-white).” Israel is rich, strong and Western; the Palestinians are poor, weak and non-Western.
The only other possible explanation is that Israel is Jewish.
There is no other rational explanation because the fixation with, and the hatred of, Israel are not rational. Israel is a particularly decent country. It is tiny — about the size of New Jersey and smaller than El Salvador; and while there are more than 50 Muslim countries, there is only one Jewish one. She should be admired and supported, not hated to the extent that there are dozens of countries whose populations would like to see Israel annihilated — again, a unique phenomenon. No other country in the world is targeted for extermination.
As hard as it is for modern, rational and irreligious people to accept, Israel’s Jewishness is a primary reason for the hatred of it. 
Ironically, this fact — just as with the fixation on the Jew before Israel’s existence — confirms for this observer the divine role the Jew plays in history. Few Jews are aware of their role, and even fewer want it. But, other than the influence of the left, there is no other explanation for all the animosity toward Israel.


Posted on Jul. 23, 2014 at 11:14 am
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host (AM 870 in Los Angeles) and founder of PragerUniversity.com. His latest book is the New York Times best-seller “Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph” (HarperCollins, 2012).
Tracker Pixel for Entry

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Listen Carefully: Hands Up Don't Shoot Never happened

Monday, August 17, 2015




Hands Up. Don’t Shoot!
–Protesters in the aftermath of the August 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.
This phrase became a rallying cry for Ferguson residents, who took to the streets to protest the fatal shooting of a black 18-year-old by a white police officer, Darren Wilson. Witness accounts spread after the shooting that Brown had his hands raised in surrender, mouthing the words “Don’t shoot” as his last words before being shot execution-style. The gesture of raised hands became a symbol of outrage over mistreatment of unarmed black youth by police.
That narrative was called into question when a St. Louis County grand jury could not confirm those testimonies. And a recently released Department of Justice investigative report concluded the same.
Yet the gesture continues to be used today. So we wanted to set the record straight on the DOJ’s findings, especially after The Washington Post’s opinion writer Jonathan Capehart wrote that it was “built on a lie.” From time to time, we retroactively check statements as new information becomes available. In this case, the Justice Department has concluded that Wilson acted out of self-defense, and was justified in killing Brown.
Does “Hands up, don’t shoot” capture the facts of Brown’s shooting? What has it come to symbolize now?
The Facts

“Hands up, don’t shoot” links directly to Brown’s death, and it went viral. After the shooting, St. Louis Rams players raised their hands as a symbolic gesture entering the field before a football game. Protesters chanted “Hands up, don’t shoot” during rallies after a grand jury in the state’s case against Wilson decided not to indict Wilson in Brown’s killing. The phrase and gesture were on signs, T-shirts, hashtags, memes and magazine covers. It even has its own Wikipedia page.
In November 2014, a grand jury decided not to indict Wilson after finding that witness reports did not match up with evidence. Other witnesses recanted their original accounts or changed them, calling their veracity into question. In particular, the grand jury could not confirm the “Hands up, don’t shoot” narrative the way it was told after the shooting. By then, however, the phrase had taken on a message of its own.
On Dec. 1, 2014, four members of the Congressional Black Caucus repeated the gesture while delivering speeches on the House Floor titled, “Black in America: What Ferguson Says About Where We Are and Where We Need to Go.” Each of the members held up their hands, and the image spread widely online.
Yet the Department of Justice’s March 4, 2015, investigative report on the shooting of Michael Brown found federal investigators could not confirm witness accounts that Brown signaled surrender before being killed execution-style. The department’s descriptions of about 40 witness testimonies show the original claims that Brown had his hands up were not accurate.
Some witnesses who claimed they saw Brown’s hands raised had testimonies that were inconsistent with physical and forensic evidence. Some admitted to federal investigators they felt pressured to retell the narrative that was being spread after Brown’s shooting. Others recanted their initial testimonies saying they had heard it through media reports or via social media. A few witnesses said Brown had his hands out to his side with his palms up, as if saying “What?” Others said Brown’s hands were not raised, as he was charging at Wilson. A few said Brown’s hands were “balled up.”
Investigators narrowed down the “hands up” claim to a witness – Witness 128 – who had told his family and neighbors his inaccurate version of events as crowds gathered minutes and hours after the shooting, the report says. Another witness could not confirm what she saw because of her poor vision, but she heard a man running around the apartments along the street where Wilson shot Brown. The man was saying something to the effect of, “The police shot my friend and his hands were up.” The witness said that “quickly became the narrative on the street, and to her frustration, people used it both as an excuse to riot and to create a ‘block party’ atmosphere.”
A key passage from the report:
Investigators tracked down several individuals who, via the aforementioned media, claimed to have witnessed Wilson shooting Brown as Brown held his hands up in clear surrender. All of these purported witnesses, upon being interviewed by law enforcement, acknowledged that they did not actually witness the shooting, but rather repeated what others told them in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. … Witness accounts suggesting that Brown was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous signal of surrender when Wilson shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are otherwise not credible because of internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of inconsistencies with other credible evidence. In contrast, Wilson’s account of Brown’s actions, if true, would establish that the shootings were not objectively unreasonable under the relevant Constitutional standards governing an officer’s use of deadly force.
[Fact Checker: The viral claim that a black person is killed by police ‘every 28 hours’]
In August 2014, after Brown’s death, members of the Congressional Black Caucus delivered speeches about law enforcement’s excessive use of force against black youth. In December 2014, members again spoke about Ferguson killing and those of three others killed by police between August and Dec. 1, 2014: Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Akai Gurley in Brooklyn and Eric Garner in Staten Island. Four members of Congress– New York Democrats Hakeem Jeffries and Yvette Clarke, and Texas Democrats Sheila Jackson Lee and Al Green — raised their hands during their speeches in solidarity with the “Hands up, don’t shoot” movement. The grand jury had questioned this characterization by then.
We requested an interview with those members and other caucus leaders, to see if the DOJ report changed their responses to the Brown shooting. Jeffries responded to our request. He noted that during the December 2014 hearing, none of the members used “Hands up, don’t shoot” as a factual analysis of Brown’s shooting. A review of their comments while raising their hands confirms this:
Clarke: “Hands up, don’t shoot. … I first want to once again offer my condolence to the family of Michael Brown, whose efforts to secure justice on behalf of their son were undermined by the decision of the grand jury. The killing of Michael Brown, and attacks by the Ferguson Police Department on protesters, demonstrate an assumption that young women and men who are African American are inherently suspicious — a false assumption with deadly consequences.”
Green: “This has become the new symbol, a new statement — a statement wherein people around the country now are calling to the attention of those who don’t quite understand that this is a movement that will not dissipate. It will not evaporate. It’s a movement that is going to continue because young people — a new generation — has decided that they’re going to engage themselves in the liberation movement.”
Jeffries: “‘Hands up, don’t shoot,’ is a rallying cry of people all across America who are fed up with police violence — in community, after community, after community, fed up with police violence in Ferguson, in Brooklyn, in Cleveland, in Oakland, in cities and counties and rural communities all across America.”
Lee: “I also admire the young St. Louis Rams players who raised their hands, to be able to share in the dignity of those young, peaceful protesters. If we don’t affirm non-violence, then who will?”
The same day the DOJ released the shooting report, it also published the results of its investigation into the Ferguson Police Department. This report highlighted systemic exploitation and racial profiling of black residents in Ferguson. Jeffries said that report underscored the importance of the message of “Hands up, don’t shoot.” He said: “The issue of dealing with the police use of excessive force, often directed at unarmed African American men, in the absence of subsequent accountability through the criminal justice system, remains just as important today as it was the day before the Department of Justice report was filed.”
[Fact Checker: Giuliani’s claim that 93 percent of black murder victims are killed by other blacks]
Justin Hansford, St. Louis University professor who has been organizing legal and community advocacy after Brown’s death, said the DOJ report on Brown’s shooting did not prove that Brown never had his hands up at any point during his confrontation with Wilson. The DOJ could not find evidence to conclusively say that he did, which is an important legal distinction, he said.
Hansford said his Facebook profile photo remains an image of “Hands up” because the message is consistent regardless of the positioning of Brown’s hands: “I don’t feel any way that I was somehow duped or tricked or that my picture was based on a lie. I think it is a very symbolic gesture that really speaks to the experiences of a lot of us, a lot of youth of color.”
The Pinocchio Test

Catchy phrases like “Hands up, don’t shoot,” “Black lives matter,” “an unarmed black person is killed every 28 hours” (which we have fact checked) have resulted from protests over the deaths of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner. They are emotional messages spread easily, like the “We are 99 percent” mantra of Occupy Wall Street.
We care about facts, how they’re used and the context in which the facts are portrayed. In this case, it is important for us to note that the initial “Hands up, don’t shoot” chant after Brown’s shooting has evolved into a message that is no longer connected solely to the Ferguson event. A series of other fatal shootings by police occurred following Brown’s death, and the “Hands up, don’t shoot” came to symbolize the need to hold law enforcement accountable. And the DOJ report on Ferguson Police Department confirmed the agency systemically profiled black residents.
But we also care about setting the record straight. Investigators have overwhelmingly rejected witness accounts that Brown had his hands up in a surrender before being shot execution-style. The DOJ has concluded Wilson did not know whether Brown was armed, acted out of self-defense and was justified in killing Brown. The majority of witnesses told federal investigators that the initial claims that Brown’s hands were up were not accurate. “Hands up, don’t shoot” did not happen in Brown’s killing, and it is a characterization that deserves Four Pinocchios. Politicians should step carefully if they try to highlight this expression in the future.
Four Pinocchios



(About our rating scale)

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Why Do Lefties Hate Israel?

Everyone from liberal journalists to a member of the English cricket team is gunning for Israel at the moment. The Independent describes it as ‘rogue state’. The Guardian considers the Israeli ‘occupation’ of Gaza as a ‘shameful injustice’. Meanwhile, cricketer Moeen Ali has pledged his support for the Palestinians by sporting ‘Free Gaza’ wristbands. Respectable opinion knows which side wears the black hats in this conflict.

What is it about Israel that arouses so much anger? Is it because it’s a theocratic state, committed to destroying its neighbour, which uses civilians as human shields, tortures and kills its political opponents, persecutes homosexuals, and holds freedom of speech and the rule of law in contempt?

No, hang on, that’s Hamas, and we all know they’re the good guys of the piece. No matter how appallingly they treat their own people and how many innocents they blow up, shoot or kidnap, nothing can blot their copybook.

Which isn’t to say that Israel could get away with the same behaviour, of course. It can’t even protect its own people without drawing criticism. Israel is like the older brother who is expected to know better. His younger siblings can run riot, because they’re held to different standards, but big bro should sit there quietly, no matter how many times he takes a kicking.

Not that the media does much reporting on the kicking Israel receives. It would much rather lament the significantly higher Palestinian losses, as if they automatically put Israel in the wrong and let Hamas off the hook for striking the first blow. Israel, it seems, should show restraint that no one would realistically expect of Hamas if it possessed the same military might. The relativists who see no moral difference between a liberal democracy and a terrorist regime have no problem expecting the two sides to behave differently.

One thing’s for sure, if it was just another flyblown Islamic hellhole, Israel would get a much easier ride on the world stage. More blood is typically shed each year in Somalia, Pakistan and Nigeria than in Gaza, but outrage at those horrors pales beside the indignation Israel’s actions provoke. Heads are buried, standards doubled and blind eyes turned to provide an excuse for bashing the country everybody loves to hate.

So is this just about anti-Semitism? It is certainly rife in the Arab world, and long-standing critics of Israel probably pick up a little Jew-hatred along the way. But I don’t think it’s at the heart of Western, liberal antipathy. If anti-Semitism were to blame, it would be directed at Israel wherever it was in the world. Yet it’s hard to imagine it having as much trouble with its neighbours, or attracting as much hatred, if it were a European state. The chances are it would be another Switzerland, and would arouse the same amount of ill-feeling.

The fact is that when it comes to Israel, nobody seems to be interested in the truth. No one cares that it gave up the lands it seized during the Yom Kippur War, in the hope of securing peace. Nor that it gifted the Palestinians 3,000 greenhouses, opened border crossings and encouraged trade. Nor that the Gazans responded by destroying the greenhouses and electing a government committed to eradicating the Jews, which has fired thousands of rockets into Israel, and digs tunnels under Israeli territory from which to launch surprise attacks.

No one cares that Israel gives Gazans advance warning of raids, while Hamas deliberately targets Israeli civilians. Nor that Hamas places its weapons in schools, mosques, hospitals and private homes, to maximise the chance of civilian casualties. Nor that Israel arrested those guilty of murdering a Palestinian youth, and offered reparations to the victim’s family, while Hamas did nothing to capture or punish the killers of three Israeli teenagers. Nor that no Israeli soldiers are actually based in Gaza, despite talk of an ‘occupying force’ by Hamas apologists

No one takes these facts into account because they are unhelpful to the narrative propagated by the pro-Palestinian Left – namely, that this is a battle between a strong, macho oppressor and a weak, downtrodden underdog, which leftists can feel virtuous about supporting.

Israel is a distillation of everything leftists hate about Western nations: capitalist, conservative and fiercely patriotic. It is a projection of their own prejudices about the supposed injustices of societies that cherish the ‘wrong’ values and the ‘wrong’ people. They don’t share the Palestinians’ spiritual beliefs, but they share a common enemy. Indeed, if Israel was removed from the equation, its critics would have little good to say about Gaza or Hamas. Theirs is a marriage of convenience.

The Left’s use of the Israeli-Arab situation as a platform for moral preening, and as a metaphor for its own hang-ups, blinds it to the evils of Hamas and the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood. It seems oblivious to the ideological conflict between Islamic fundamentalists and Western progressives, because it persists in regarding the former as pet victims of the latter. It may discover the hard way that it is giving comfort to an enemy that makes no distinction between liberal hand-wringers and any other infidels.

Monday, June 29, 2015

How Obama Abandoned Israel

‘Nobody has a monopoly on making mistakes.” When I was Israel’s ambassador to the United States from 2009 to the end of 2013, that was my standard response to reporters asking who bore the greatest responsibility—President Barack Obama or Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu—for the crisis in U.S.-Israel relations.
I never felt like I was lying when I said it. But, in truth, while neither leader monopolized mistakes, only one leader made them deliberately.
Israel blundered in how it announced the expansion of Jewish neighborhoods and communities in Jerusalem over the border lines that existed before the Six Day War in 1967. On two occasions, the news came out during Mr. Netanyahu’s meetings with Vice President Joe Biden. A solid friend of Israel, Mr. Biden understandably took offense. Even when the White House stood by Israel, blocking hostile resolutions in the United Nations, settlement expansion often continued.
In a May 2012 Oval Office meeting, Mr. Netanyahu purportedly “lectured” Obama about the peace process. Later that year, he was reported to be backing Republican contenderMitt Romney in the presidential elections. This spring, the prime minister criticized Mr. Obama’s Iran policy before a joint meeting of Congress that was arranged without even informing the president.
Yet many of Israel’s bungles were not committed by Mr. Netanyahu personally. In both episodes with Mr. Biden, for example, the announcements were issued by midlevel officials who also caught the prime minister off-guard. Nevertheless, he personally apologized to the vice president.
Mr. Netanyahu’s only premeditated misstep was his speech to Congress, which I recommended against. Even that decision, though, came in reaction to a calculated mistake by President Obama. From the moment he entered office, Mr. Obama promoted an agenda of championing the Palestinian cause and achieving a nuclear accord with Iran. Such policies would have put him at odds with any Israeli leader. But Mr. Obama posed an even more fundamental challenge by abandoning the two core principles of Israel’s alliance with America.
The first principle was “no daylight.” The U.S. and Israel always could disagree but never openly. Doing so would encourage common enemies and render Israel vulnerable. Contrary to many of his detractors, Mr. Obama was never anti-Israel and, to his credit, he significantly strengthened security cooperation with the Jewish state. He rushed to help Israel in 2011 when the Carmel forest was devastated by fire. And yet, immediately after his first inauguration, Mr. Obama put daylight between Israel and America.
“When there is no daylight,” the president told American Jewish leaders in 2009, “Israel just sits on the sidelines and that erodes our credibility with the Arabs.” The explanation ignored Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and its two previous offers of Palestinian statehood in Gaza, almost the entire West Bank and half of Jerusalem—both offers rejected by the Palestinians.
Mr. Obama also voided President George W. Bush’s commitment to include the major settlement blocs and Jewish Jerusalem within Israel’s borders in any peace agreement. Instead, he insisted on a total freeze of Israeli construction in those areas—“not a single brick,” I later heard he ordered Mr. Netanyahu—while making no substantive demands of the Palestinians.
Consequently, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas boycotted negotiations, reconciled with Hamas and sought statehood in the U.N.—all in violation of his commitments to the U.S.—but he never paid a price. By contrast, the White House routinely condemned Mr. Netanyahu for building in areas that even Palestinian negotiators had agreed would remain part of Israel.
The other core principle was “no surprises.” President Obama discarded it in his first meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, in May 2009, by abruptly demanding a settlement freeze and Israeli acceptance of the two-state solution. The following month the president traveled to the Middle East, pointedly skipping Israel and addressing the Muslim world from Cairo.
Israeli leaders typically received advance copies of major American policy statements on the Middle East and could submit their comments. But Mr. Obama delivered his Cairo speech, with its unprecedented support for the Palestinians and its recognition of Iran’s right to nuclear power, without consulting Israel.
Similarly, in May 2011, the president altered 40 years of U.S. policy by endorsing the 1967 lines with land swaps—formerly the Palestinian position—as the basis for peace-making. If Mr. Netanyahu appeared to lecture the president the following day, it was because he had been assured by the White House, through me, that no such change would happen.
Israel was also stunned to learn that Mr. Obama offered to sponsor a U.N. Security Council investigation of the settlements and to back Egyptian and Turkish efforts to force Israel to reveal its alleged nuclear capabilities. Mr. Netanyahu eventually agreed to a 10-month moratorium on settlement construction—the first such moratorium since 1967—and backed the creation of a Palestinian state. He was taken aback, however, when he received little credit for these concessions from Mr. Obama, who more than once publicly snubbed him.
The abandonment of the “no daylight” and “no surprises” principles climaxed over the Iranian nuclear program. Throughout my years in Washington, I participated in intimate and frank discussions with U.S. officials on the Iranian program. But parallel to the talks came administration statements and leaks—for example, each time Israeli warplanes reportedly struck Hezbollah-bound arms convoys in Syria—intended to deter Israel from striking Iran pre-emptively.
Finally, in 2014, Israel discovered that its primary ally had for months been secretly negotiating with its deadliest enemy. The talks resulted in an interim agreement that the great majority of Israelis considered a “bad deal” with an irrational, genocidal regime. Mr. Obama, though, insisted that Iran was a rational and potentially “very successful regional power.”
The daylight between Israel and the U.S. could not have been more blinding. And for Israelis who repeatedly heard the president pledge that he “had their backs” and “was not bluffing” about the military option, only to watch him tell an Israeli interviewer that “a military solution cannot fix” the Iranian nuclear threat, the astonishment could not have been greater.
Now, with the Middle East unraveling and dependable allies a rarity, the U.S. and Israel must restore the “no daylight” and “no surprises” principles. Israel has no alternative to America as a source of security aid, diplomatic backing and overwhelming popular support. The U.S. has no substitute for the state that, though small, remains democratic, militarily and technologically robust, strategically located and unreservedly pro-American.
The past six years have seen successive crises in U.S.-Israeli relations, and there is a need to set the record straight. But the greater need is to ensure a future of minimal mistakes and prevent further erosion of our vital alliance.
Mr. Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the United States and a member of the Knesset, is the author of “Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide” (Random House, 2015).

Friday, May 15, 2015

Catholic Church: Haven for Child Molesters or Refuge for Terrorists?



Thousands of Catholic clergy and religious have raped and sodomized tens of thousands of children—perhaps more than 100,000 children—since 1950. These crimes were committed in secret, and bishops nurtured that secrecy. Over 17,000 survivors have broken through the silence, and their accounts have created an in-depth picture of the crisis, both in their own writings and in the work of journalists and law enforcement officials. Attorneys have obtained diocesan documentsthat reveal additional survivor witness and also document parts of a huge cover-up. But for every account that is known, hundreds are not yet public. Here are some numbers documenting the Church's role in molesting innocent boys and girls.
 25,383 – using the current USCCB rate of victims per priest (2.6) and the New Hampshire level of accused priests (8.9%)
  46,125 – using the Boston archdiocesan count of victims and the Boston share of U.S. Catholics
100,000 – using Rev. Andrew Greeley's 1993 partial estimate of 2,500 accused priests and 50 victims per priest
320,000 – using the USCCB's current count of accused priests (6,427) and Greeley's estimate of 50 victims per priest.
By any standard, this "church" is, to put it politely, incredibly immoral.

This is the same Church that aided and supported the Nazis in Germany.
Nazi leaders of Catholic background included Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Joseph Goebbels.
Hitler did well in monastery school. He sang in the choir, found High Mass and other ceremonies intoxicating, and idolized priests. Impressed by their power, he at one time considered entering the priesthood.
Rudolf Hoess, who as commandant at Auschwitz-Birkinau pioneered the use of the Zyklon-B gas that killed half of all Holocaust victims, had strict Catholic parents. Hermann Goering had mixed Catholic-Protestant parentage,

Now the Catholic Church has announced they will support the Palestinian Arabs in their campaign to destroy Israel.

The Catholic Church is a disgrace to decency and the term "Christian".

Friday, May 08, 2015

I Knew MLKJR, I worked with MLKJR, and You, Mr.Sharpton, are no MLKJR

As the riots raged in Baltimore Sharpton and other race profiteers who line their pockets by stirring black communities into violence, he made an awfully ridiculous statement about himself.

As Sharpton took the stage, he compared himself to the late, great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. — an actual, respected civil rights leader who made effective changes without burning down U.S. cities.


But Sharpton’s comparison didn’t sit well with King’s niece, Dr. Alveda King, who recently told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that Sharpton was sorely mistaken when he told his followers that violence, like the kind that took place in Baltimore, did happen when MLK was around and that people should “do their research” before claiming that it didn’t.

Dr. Alveda King told Cavuto, “I’m astounded, because when Rev. Sharpton says you need to do research — research will show that my uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. … who actually came from a background where it would have been easy for him to be violent — they were trained in non-violence, conflict resolution.”

She continued defending her uncle, along with her father and other civil rights leaders who were able to make change without raising a hand, looting drug stores or throwing bricks at police officers.


“So yes, do your research, and every time, you will see … young people following non-violent conflict resolution. Did they want to riot?” she said. “Yes — but there was a standard, there were teachers, there were leaders who helped them not fight.”

“So Reverend Sharpton might have to do some research himself,” she said (H/T IJ Review).


Its laughable that Sharpton would compare his actions to those of MLK, as Sharpton’s only true intention is to grow the bottom line of his National Action Network.

Dr. King did it for the betterment of humanity.


Monday, March 30, 2015

America's incomprehensible conduct

Dr. Haim Shine

The incomprehensible, and borderline delusional, conduct of the American government vis-à-vis the Iranian nuclear program takes us back to an interview that then-U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull gave to Time magazine in April 1933. In that interview, Hull claimed that Germany's bad attitude toward Jews had been largely eliminated. But in the years that followed, it turned out that this was not the case, and it was the Jews who were eliminated by Germany.
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are now, like Hull back then, shutting their eyes to the dangers of the world and closing their ears to the thunderous drums of war. It appears that all they care about is achieving a historical "legacy" -- via a nuclear deal with Iran and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Fortunately for Obama and Kerry, they will not have to answer for their recklessness, negligence and blindness. By the time the consequences of their actions become clear, they will be private citizens. American history books will tell the tale of the country's first black president, who at first inspired great, almost messianic, hope, but ultimately left behind a tired and broken nation unable to differentiate between good and bad, or right and wrong.
Every wise person knows the Iranians will not live up to what they pledge regarding their nuclear program. All Iranian "compromises" on this matter, which will be applauded by world powers, will be based on a total lie. All means, including lies and deception, are viewed as permissible by Iran in its quest to fulfill its dream of establishing a caliphate, which the possession of nuclear weapons would help bring about.
World powers will never be able to truly monitor the progress of Iran's nuclear program. And any intelligence gathered by Saudi Arabia or Israel about Iranian violations of a nuclear deal would likely not convince world powers, who do not have the will or determination to use force against Iran.
It is now clear how right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to call on the world to prevent a rogue terror state from obtaining nuclear weapons. If only the West was to maintain, and perhaps bolster, the sanctions on Iran for a little while longer, Iran would come crawling on its knees to an agreement. But unfortunately, it is the West which is now crawling on its knees. If Obama was to wake up at the last moment and end this madness, the citizens of the world would thank him.
This is not the first time in history in which the Jews have had to stand alone against the ultimate evil. Pharaoh was the first we had to deal with, and many others followed him. But now, thanks to the Israel Defense Forces, we have the military strength not just to survive, but also to stand up to evil and defeat it. There is no doubt that, at the moment of truth, a determined Israel will know how to deal with the threat.
The closing of the Straits of Tiran in 1967 led to the outbreak of the Six-Day War, from which Israel emerged victorious. It may be that the current struggle for control the Bab-el-Mandeb strait off the coast of Yemen represents the opening of a war over the identity of the new-old Middle East. "And God shall be seen over them, and His arrow shall go forth as the lightning: and the Lord God will blow the horn, and will go with whirlwinds of the south" (Zechariah 9:14).

Sunday, March 15, 2015

We Need Bibi

Prime Minister Netanyahu appears to be the only leader able to stand up to Iran, which is developing nuclear weapons, and the Obama administration.

“So I think we should stay focused on the real problem in the Middle East. It’s not Israel. It’s these dictatorships that are developing nuclear weapons with the specific goal of wiping Israel away.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

The latest polls show that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s bid for re-election could be in jeopardy as the Herzog/Livni, Zionist Union, left-leaning team has gained steam with the Israeli electorate. Israelis seem to have Bibi fatigue. Additionally, they are very frustrated with how expensive things are. Many are priced out of homes and watch the price of groceries continue to rise. It isn’t easy to make it financially in Israel.

Playing into these vulnerabilities within Israeli society, it was reported that theBibi and ObamaObama administration worked behind-the-scenes to make sure the more pliable partnership of Herzog and Livni were elected. It is believed that they would be much less likely to interfere with Obama’s hoped for deal with Iran. Obama also believes that his dream of dividing Israel with a Palestinian State, based on the indefensible ’67 lines, would also come to fruition with the ousting of Netanyahu.

Speaking to David Horovitz at The Times of Israel, Netanyahu states:


“There is an effort by leftist NGOs throughout the world, and left-leaning tycoons and consultants from various political parties, including from the United States, to try to bring down the Likud and me. They say so openly. They are conducting a campaign with tens of millions of dollars under the banner, ‘Anyone but Bibi.’ They understand that if I’m gone, the right will collapse. And that’s what they’re trying to do.

“They’re trying to get Boujie and Tzipi in government here, because they realize that they will capitulate to all the dictates the international left wants to impose on Israel. They’re not doing it because they care about the cost of living in Israel. They care about getting Israel to retreat to the ’67 lines, to divide Jerusalem, and to accept this deal with Iran. I oppose them, and therefore I’m in their way.”


This is alarming given Obama’s past downplaying of Global Islamic Jihad and the dangers it poses worldwide, not just in the Middle East.

Consider how dangerous this is now as ISIS goes on murderous rampages throughout large swathes of the Middle East and with Israel being one of their targets for annihilation.

Prime Minister Netanyahu worries, and for good reason, that ISIS would take over a created Palestinian state within Judea and Samaria.

Dueling Caliphates

Israel and the West are facing a threat of duelling caliphates. ISIS, with their newly formed partnership with Boko Haram, are rampaging through the Middle East, North and West Africa. They state their plans to move into North America and Europe. From recent reports, they have a fifth column of cells within these targeted areas.

Iran has its terror proxies in the Middle East, with their main target being Israel and then the US. The little satan and the big satan, as they have referenced in past threats. They have also made inroads within South America.

The stakes for a hegemonic caliphate are being raised and are in Iran’s favor as they are being courted by the current US administration for a Nuclear Arms deal.

Netanyahu: Firewall Against a Nuclear Iran

The Prime Minister of Israel’s speech before Congress placed Bibi in the position of the de facto world leader because the West does not have one at this time. President Obama is obviously more interested in not offending Islam and making any deal with Iran just so long as he can have some sort of a legacy to cover up for his string of foreign policy failures. Looking back to the Carter Administration’s support of Iran back in the 70’s, we can see how well that worked out.

Netanyahu appears to be the only leader who will stand up to Iran and the Obama administration. He explained in his speech that not only does Israel face an existential threat from Iran, but the US does also. The Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles are meant to reach America, not Israel.

Saturday, February 07, 2015

Global Jihad

Global jihad

    By RobSmith 
           
  
The global jihad (sometimes referred to as World War III), from the Salafi-jihadist perspective, is a confrontation between the people of God[wp] and the enemies of God[wp] for control of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, Islam, and ultimately world domination[wp]. The victor is also granted the right to exploit the assets of the world's richest corporation, now known as Saudi Aramco[wp].
There are four primary belligerent[wp] groups, Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, Iran, and global infidels. This Essay is a summary categorization of the four dominant belligerents, their allies and proxies.
 

Dar al-Harb

Dar al-Harb (the Realm of Conflict), according to Salafists, is principally made up of the New World Order[1] as organized within the kufr member states of the United Nations. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a participating member of the U.N. and, despite its name, is considered to be among the unbelieving nations.

Global infidels

From the Salafi-jihadist perepective, global infidels are a diverse group who have not embraced the Prophet's message after 1400 years. Whether this is due to resistance among the kufrs or failure among the ummah to execute Allah's will is a matter of speculation and debate among scholars on both sides of the divide.
Global infidels, as of 2014, broadly follow alliance schemes set down during the Cold War, with a few alterations. China, Japan and India, three economic powerhouses relative to the combined output of all the competing Islamic belligerents, coupled with their burgeoning potential for military strength, are also reckoned among global infidels.

Comparative asset value of Saudi Aramco, the world's richest corporation against United States GDP, China, and total world economic output, in trillions, 2014.[2]

Global infidel alliance

Sheikh Abd al-Aziz bin Baz[wp], Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia from 1993 until his death in 1999, was ostracized by the Salafi-jihadists for his support of the New World Order, replacing Shariah with secular rule [3] and bringing Saudi Arabia, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques[wp], within the global infidel alliance.

Junior Nato Crusaders

Nato Muslim partners

Russia and non-Muslim federated Republics

Since its founding in 1992 the Russian Federation has fought several insurgencies against al-Qaeda affiliates within its borders.[5] Russia has provided assistance to Iran and the Alawites in the war against al-Nusra and ISIS. By virtue of its position among the five permanent members[wp] of the United Nations Security Council[wp], and its traditional Christian character, it properly belongs to the Realm of Conflict.

Muslim Republics of the Russian Federation

Dar al-Salam

The word 'Islam' is a contraction[wp] of the term, 'Dar al-Salam', usually translated as 'the Realm of Peace' or 'Abode of Peace'. Three factions within the Realm of Peace are presently at War with each other and the global infidels for the prize of Mecca & the assets of Saudi Aramco.[7]

  Iran


Extent of influence of a proposed Iranian Superpower.[8]
Because of its Shi'ite character, the Islamic Republic of Iran is referred to as Rafida[wp], or rejectionist of the orthodox Salafi traditions handed down thru Ibn Taymiyyah[wp], Abd al-Wahhab[wp], and others. While the government of Iran has been labeled as the leading state sponsor of terrorism[9], its official Shi'a brand of Islam stands in contrast to Sunni Salafi-jihadism, which regards Shiism not so much as a dissident sect, but rather heretical and treasonous.
Within the U.N framework of the "New World Order", as some so-called "Islamists" refer to it, Iran pursues its foreign policy objectives under the kufr Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations[wp] while covertly resorting to terrorism.
The Shi'a who look to the Islamic Republic of Iran currently are on the defensive in a genocidal campaign unleashed by the Islamic State. Iran is actively supporting the Assad regime of Syria against an insurgency by the Sunni Salafi-jihadists of al Nusra (al Qaeda) and ISIS. Iran receives support from the kufr regime of Russia[10], proving they are in bed with global infidels and are traitors to Islam.
Since its founding in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been in a covert war with the House of Saud[wp]. They consider themselves more adept as Custodians of the Holy Places than the Saudis, who rely for their security on the Great Satan[wp], who has spread debauchery, Westernization, and Hollywood movies around the planet.

Shiite proxies

The Islamic State

The Salafi-jihadis[wp] of the Islamic State currently are at war with their brother Salafi-jihadis of al Qaeda, with the rejectionist Shi'a of Iran and its proxies, and with the global infidel alliance led by the United States. (Salafi-jihadis expound an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that the global infidel alliance is led by Israel which controls the United States and all its crony proxies, stooges, and satellite regimes).
The Islamic State's design for global hegemony dates from a time when the earth was flat.

The Islamic State (official map).
Courtesy: The Islamic State
In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue, because of the threat Islamic extremists posed to Western commercial trading interests. For nearly a millenium prior to Mohammad, East-West trade between Europe, India, and China was facilitated via the Silk Route[wp]. With the rise of Islam, Western merchant caravans often were hi-jacked, their goods looted, and the tradesman enslaved or beheaded. After the failure of the Four Crusades to rollback the onslaught[11] of the new faith, Christopher Columbus devised a scheme to by-pass Islam and restore global trade. By sailing West to get East, Columbus accidentally discovered a new continent which proved to be a boon to the economic growth[wp] of Western civilization[wp] for the next 500 years.
Modern Salafists who aim to resurrect the first three hundred years of Islam (as seen in the map, upper right)[12] neglect the fact the world has somewhat changed since the Prophet Mohammad's day, and the existence of the Western Hemisphere hampers their plans for world domination making it more difficult and complicated[13].

Provinces

  • Wilayat al-Sinai[wp]
  • Wilayat al-Yaman
  • Wilayat al-Haramayn
  • Wilayat al-Libya[wp]
  • Wilayat al-Algeria[wp]
  • Wilayat al-Khorasan

Al Qaeda

The remaining Salafi-jihadis of al Qaeda currently are at war with their brother Salafi-jihadis of ISIS, with the rejectionist Shi'a of Yemen, and with some elements of the global infidel alliance, principally Russia in Dagestan and other Republics of the Russian Federation, and France in the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack. Also, they are at war with the government of Pakistan, the Western satellite state of Afghanistan, and Christian villages of Nigeria.
Al Qaeda is now the Junior Varsity in the global jihad, a bit player, and motivated by the personal animosities and jealousies of its leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri who was shunted aside for the role of Caliph by the upstart Baghdadi. Power struggles for the sucsessorship to Mohammad are as old as Islam itself. Why Allah honors certain caliphs who murder competitors to the successorship, and not others, remains a subject of debate.

Irv Rubin and Earl Krugel

Never Again!


website page counter