"The problem here is a totalitarian uniformity, a cult-like mentality such that even allies are enemies if they fail to follow the Exact Party Line. " - Phyllis Chesler

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Dating Again...And You Won't Believe It

Well, out of the blue I'm dating again. The thing is this guy just popped into my life.  I didn't ask for it, I didn't expect it and here he is.

He's pro-Israel and yet a total Obamabot. I had thought he was more open than he actually is. But here's what I'm learning from this experience: sometimes all we have to do is be present and our presence makes the difference.

Before you get excited this isn't going to lead to the conclusion you'd be hoping for.

You see this man who is 8 years my senior is having issues making peace within himself for the person he knows me to be, the things I believe in and the fact that I lean toward the Tea Party.

Now in truth you all know I do not believe everything the Tea Party stands for. I've read many things about some of the people they've invited in the mid-west that are anti Israel and horrible and it makes me sick to know this. But I'd say I can feel aligned with them 95% of the time. But I digress.

You see this man has been indoctrinated. The explosion that came out of his mouth just the other night toward me was a challenge for me, eye opening but gave me some opportunities for me to see just who I really am, how strong I am and how proud I am of myself for all my personal changes and triumphs.

I was calm. He was a maniac in anger. It was like watching a deranged person. His personal agenda showed through that has led him to "be inspired by Obama" and it comes from a sickness in his heart in his own life and family story.  I've seen this before, many times.  Folks I live in NYC. Most are like this.

My calmness was unnerving him. "That's how YOU people are. You're always calm and so full of shit."

You see I just do not fit the stereotype of what they tell people like him "WE" are. And this is a conflict for him. He cannot understand this. I saw such rage. But I was calm. I said my piece. I did not hold back who I am and I told him I won't change.

Ironically I think the things we want in life are very similar. He just doesn't understand that the people he is holding in esteem are using him as a tool for some ideology. He may never get it. But meeting me has shown him a new picture of "US" and it doesn't mesh with his script in his head that has been put there.

At one point he started screaming at me about the AZ law. Alas, I asked, "Did you read it?"

Of course not. And he believes the police have the right to just stop people and ask them if they are illegal and take them away. He is a naturalized citizen and has a distrust for the police. You see, the personal story, he believes has a right to dictate other people's lives. And so many people like him think and believe this way. It's very sad. And what happened to his family is sad and scary and I learned about that time in his native country's history.  But he cannot be logical and cannot see the logic from the right.

I used to be just like him. And then I listened. And then I experienced the screaming shout downs of free thought while in college and I realized I had been scammed.

I was so proud of myself. I stood my ground. I shouted that Che was a murder scum. I will not allow his indoctrinated garbage to infect me. And let me tell you it's very hard for him to let go of this.

I stood my ground. I stayed and I said, "This IS who I am. I will NOT change. You are intolerant of other people's views. It is you who are so for tolerance that is completely intolerant. Not me!"

But I also understood, which is a big big change for me, that this was much deeper than politics. I realized he had already been thinking about a future with me, and he was scared out of his wits and this was the source of his rage. The juxtaposing political views made him scared and made him realize how he felt about me and he needed an excuse to run.

Seven years ago I was in an uncannily similar position. Just before a major trip I was to take with the man I was in love with, he hit me with a lie about his feelings for me because he was scared. I crumbled. I didn't have the emotional intelligence to see what was really happening. I also didn't have the backbone to stand up for myself and state who I was and be me.

I didn't need this "karmic do-over" but here it was. I said "I know you for two weeks. I'm not going to fight for you. I'm not changing." And then confronted him dead on, eye to eye and I said without any fear or hesitation, "What is this really about? You're scared because in only two weeks you have deep feelings for me and this scares you to death. Admit it."

I am so proud of myself. I know that the only person I can control is me. He is not my property. I am not his. No one owns my mind but me. The final outcome in this relationship is not the issue here. I finally love me. And I know it. He may never be able to make peace with his ideology that he is so married to, and may not have the ability to accept that all he has devoted himself to is a big lie. That's a hard thing to do. Especially for men because it equals the feeling of failure to most people. When in truth it is the triumph and most freeing act we can do for ourselves. It hurts to feel/realize that you were wrong. It can be devastating. And he may never be capable of it. Ego is such a strong thing. But that is not up to me. Cognitive dissonance that says that once a person makes up their mind about something - it is quite difficult to change without feeling foolish - so they resist changing.  

And yes, he admitted he does have deep feelings for me already.

As a spiritual person I know that often g-d, universe puts us square in the middle of a place that seems so hard to be, simply because our presence makes the greatest effect on the people surrounding us. We need not preach or force our will on others. Just who we are and how we live is the example that is the catalyst for the changes that are needed.

I do not fit the right wing Tea Party stereotype and it unnerves him to the bone. What he believes about us is so evil and he knows I am not evil. And all I need to do is be for the time g-d wants.

Is the President one of Us or someone else? - Walid Shoebat


Monday, June 28, 2010

Go Green - Warning Language Content


He won't allow embedding. But click on the link. It's worth it.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

The Enabling Act - March 23, 1933


It's time to do some homework and connect the dots. If you can't see the eerie similarities of what happened and what is happening again to the Jews then take off your damn blinders. Come on PC world, save a Jew.

Hat Tip @Rxrthepoet 

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Thursday, June 24, 2010

AZ Doesn't Share a Border with Mexico?

I'd love to write LMAO but really the ignorance isn't very funny.

Jewish dance group stoned in Hanover, Germany Via BBC


Monday, June 21, 2010

Muslim Children Signing "When We Die As Martyers"

Oh yes but it's Israel's fault, right!??????????????

Hateful Helen

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Friday, June 18, 2010

President At The Bat

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The Cult of Personality

I hate Obama and for the same reasons I HATE Ron Paul. The Cult of Personality. These men are two peas in a pod. PERIOD.

The Daily Revolt did a bang up job proving this.

Here's the page. I post it here in it's entirety because I do not trust the internet any longer. Things are scrubbed and people's pages are hacked.

December 23, 2007

Ron Paul Exposed on Meet The Press

Ron Paul was finally exposed by Tim Russert on Meet The Press. On several points Paul was stumped, giving rambling or bizarre responses.

He attacks Abraham Lincoln:
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..

MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

Are you for term limits or not?:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask this. Term limits. You ran on term limits. "I think we should have term limits for our elected leaders." You've been in Congress 18 years.

REP. PAUL: But I never ran on voluntary term limits. There's a big difference. I didn't sign a pledge for a voluntary term limit. Matter of fact, some of the best people that I worked with, who were the most principled, came in on voluntary term limits. Some of them broke their promises, and some didn't, and they were very good people. So some of the good people left. And it's true, I, I didn't run on that, Tim, you're wrong on that. I support term limits. You know, I, I, and I voted all--we had 16 votes one time on term limits, and I voted yes for them.


REP. PAUL: But voluntary term limits is a lot different than compulsory term limits. It's good to have a turnover, but that isn't the solution either. It's the philosophy of government that counts. It's only...

MR. RUSSERT: But if you believe in the philosophy of term limits, why wouldn't you voluntarily...

REP. PAUL: Well, it's, it's one of those, it's one of those things that's not on--I mean, you don't see that out I'm campaigning on that. I mean, I don't think it's--I don't think it's the solution. Philosophy is the solution. What the role of government ought to be, so if you have a turnover and the same people come in and they believe in big government, nothing good is going to come of it.

Are you a Republican or not?:
MR. RUSSERT: You're running as a Republican. In your--on your Web site, in your brochures, you make this claim: "Principled Leadership. Ron was also one of only four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president against Gerald Ford in" '76. There's a photograph of you, Ronald Reagan on the right, heralding your support of Ronald Reagan. And yet you divorced yourself from Ronald Reagan. You said this: "Although he was once an ardent supporter of President Reagan, Paul now speaks of him as a traitor leading the country into debt and conflicts around the world. "I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration." And you go on to The Dallas Morning News: "Paul now calls Reagan a `dramatic failure.'"

REP. PAUL: Well, I'll bet you any money I didn't use the word traitor. I'll bet you that's somebody else, so I think that's misleading. But a failure, yes, in, in many ways. The government didn't shrink. Ultimately, after he got in office, he said, "All I want to do is reduce the rate of increase in size of government." That's not my goal. My goal is to reduce our government to a constitutional size. Completely different. I think that--matter of fact, he admitted in his memoirs that he had a total failure in Lebanon, and he said he relearned the Middle East because of that failure. And so there--he--you know, he...

MR. RUSSERT: But if he's a total failure, why are you using, using his picture in your brochure?

REP. PAUL: Well, because he, he ran on a good program, and his, his idea was a limited government. Get rid of the Department of Education, a strong national defense.

MR. RUSSERT: George Herbert Walker Bush, this is according to Ron Paul: "`Bush is a bum,' Paul wrote in" "November" 15th, "1992 issue of his newsletter, the `Ron Paul Political Report.'" And asked about the current President Bush, whether he voted for him in 2004: "Paul says no: `He misled us in 2000.'" Asked if he voted for Bush in 2000. No, "`I didn't vote for him then, either. I wasn't convinced he was a conservative.'" And actually, in 1987, you submitted a letter of resignation to the Republican Party: "I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card." If Reagan's a failure, Bush 41 is a bum, and you didn't vote for Bush 41--41's a bum and 43 you didn't vote for, and you resigned from the Republican Party, why you running as a Republican candidate for president?

REP. PAUL: Because I represent what Republicanism used to be. I represent the group that wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, the part, that part of the Republican Party that used to be non-interventionists overseas. That was the tradition, the Robert/Taft wing of the party. There was a time when the Republicans defended individual liberty and the Constitution and decreased spending. So the radicals, the ones who really don't belong in the Republican Party and why the Republican Party is shrinking, why the base is so small, is because they don't stand for these ideals any more. So I stand for the ideals of the Republican Party. I've been elected 10 times as Republican. I've been a Republican all my life except for that one year that I ran as a Libertarian. But, no, I represent the Republican ideals, I think, much more so that the individuals running for the party right now. 

Given your hostile views toward the Republican Party it Sounds like you are going to run as an independent. You've done it before:
MR. RUSSERT: If, if you do not win the Republican nomination for president, will you run as an independent in 2008?

REP. PAUL: I have no intention to do that.

MR. RUSSERT: Absolute promise.

REP. PAUL: I have no intention of doing that.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, but no intention's a wiggle word.

REP. PAUL: Well, OK, I deserve one wiggle now and then, Tim. I mean, what the devil...

MR. RUSSERT: So no--so no Shermanesque statement.

REP. PAUL: You know, I...

MR. RUSSERT: "I will not sun as an independent."

REP. PAUL: Well, I can be pretty darned sure that I have no intention, no plans of doing it, and that's about 99.9 percent. I don't like people who are such absolutists, "I will never do this, or I will win, I'm going to come in first." I don't like those absolutists terms in politics.

MR. RUSSERT: But the door's open a little bit.

REP. PAUL: Not very much. It really isn't. I, I don't--Tim, we just raised $10 million in two days. We haven't even had a race, we have February 5th coming up. We have a campaign to run. Why--do you ask all the other--how many other candidates have you asked, "Are you going to run as a third party candidate if you don't win?" Have you asked John McCain that?

MR. RUSSERT: Well, if someone has a history of running as a third party candidate, sure. You ran in '88 as a Libertarian.

REP. PAUL: Yeah, well, I know...

MR. RUSSERT: It's a logical question.

REP. PAUL: ...but there are independents. So I--ask them, too.

Paul the Isolationist:
MR. RUSSERT: Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we respond?

REP. PAUL: I don't--why should we unless the Congress declared war? I mean, why are we there? Could--South Korea, they're begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way. They want to build bridges and go back and forth. Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have become Westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here. And Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess. I mean, the problem still exists, and it's drained trillion dollars over these last, you know, 50 years. So stop--we can't afford it anymore. We're going bankrupt. All empires end because the countries go bankrupt, and the, and the currency crashes. That's what happening. And we need to come out of this sensibly rather than waiting for a financial crisis.

Would you get rid of the public schools or not?:
MR. RUSSERT: And you actually go further. You said this. "Abolish the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency and dismantle every other agency except the Justice and Defense Departments." And then you went on. "If elected president, Paul says he would abolish public schools, welfare, Social Security and farm subsidies."

REP. PAUL: OK, you may have picked that up 20 or 30 years ago, it's not part of my platform. As a matter of fact, I'm the only one that really has an interim program. Technically, a lot of those functions aren't constitutional. But the point is I'm not against the FBI investigation in doing a proper role, but I'm against the FBI spying on people like Martin Luther King. I'm against the CIA fighting secret wars and overthrowing government and interfering...

MR. RUSSERT: Would you abolish them?

REP. PAUL: I would, I would not abolish all their functions, but I--the, the, the...

MR. RUSSERT: What about public schools? Are you still...

REP. PAUL: OK, but let's go, let's go with the CIA. They're, they're involved in, in, in torture. I would abolish that, yes. But I wouldn't abolish their right and our, our requirement to accumulate intelligence for national defense purposes. 
Read the entire transcript...

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

SeStack SS

SeStack is the modern day SS.

The Facts on Joe Sestak’s Record:
Wrong on Israel - Wrong for the Senate

FACT: Joe Sestak signed the controversial letter calling on President Obama to pressure Israel to relax security measures affecting Hamas-controlled Gaza.
  • Sestak’s public comments on this action portrayed the humanitarian issues facing Gaza residents as Israel’s fault, letting Hamas off the hook.
    “Sestak Under the Gun After Signing on to letter," Philadelphia Exponent, 2/4/10,http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/20567/
  • A leading pro-Israel Democrat, Eliot Engel (D-NY) lamented that the members who signed the letter were “misinformed” and influenced by "extreme fringe elements."  Engel accused Sestak and the others of having diverged from the pro-Israel “mainstream of the party.”
    “Congressman Engel interview: Worry about Iran, don't worry about the fringe,” Rosner’s Domain [blog], Jerusalem Post, 2/16/10,http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/congressman_engel_interview_worry_about
FACT: Sestak was endorsed and funded by J Street’s political action committee.
  • The Jerusalem Post reported that J Street’s Finance committee, a cohort of donors who have contributed at least $10,000 to the group – includes a number who also contribute to organizations hostile to Israel.
  • Lebanese-American businessman Richard Abdoo, is also a board member of Amideast and a former board member of the Arab American Institute,
  • Genevieve Lynch, is also a member of the National Iranian American Council board.
  • Smaller donors included several leaders of Muslim student groups, Saudi- and Iranian-born Americans, and Palestinian- and Arab-American businessmen who also give to Arab-American PACs
“Muslims, Arabs among J Street donors,” Jerusalem Post, 8/14/09,http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=151811 

FACT: Sestak rarely supports the measures identified as top priorities by mainstream supporters of the US-Israel relationship.
  • Sestak did not cosponsor the Iran sanctions bill that passed the House of Representatives even though 343 out of 435 House members did.
    H.R. 2194:, Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009,http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2194
  • In 2007, Sestak voted for an amendment to constrain the President’s ability to respond to the threat from Iran, even though pro-Israel activists warned that, in the words of Rep. Shelley Berkeley (D-NV), “This is not the time to be tying our hands on Iran.”
    House of Represenatives, Roll Call Vote #364, 5/16/07, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll364.xml

FACT: Sestak gave the keynote speech at a fundraiser for CAIR, a group deemed a supporter of terrorism even by leading Democrats like Senators Schumer and Durbin.
  • In 2007, Sestak gave the keynote address at a banquet and fundraiser for the Philadelphia Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations.
  • In response to concerns about the group, Sestak said CAIR was a “legitimate organization” doing “good work.”
    “Sestak Scheduled Speech to Muslim Group Causes Uproar,” Politico, 3/19/07,http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3178.html
  • Also in 2007, Senator Boxer took the rare step of rescinding an official award to a constituent upon learning that the individual was an official in the CAIR organization.
    “Boxer, Muslim group say skirmish resolved," Associated Press, 1/24/07,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16799124/
  • Earlier, Senator Schumer described CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, as an organization “which we know has ties to terrorism” and “intimate links with Hamas.”
  • Also earlier, Durbin described CAIR as “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect.”
    “CAIR Islamists Fooling the Establishment" by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha, Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2006, http://www.meforum.org/916/cair-islamists-fooling-the-establishment#_ftn3

Berlitz Foul Language English Series

Hat tip Debbie Schlussel

Monday, June 14, 2010

Representative Bob Etheridge of NC Attacks Student Asking Him "Do You Support the Obama Agenda?"


By MARTHA WAGGONER, Associated Press Writer – Mon Jun 14, 7:05 pm ET
RALEIGH, N.C. – A Democratic congressman apologized Monday after video posted online showed him swatting at a video camera and demanding that two men taping him identify themselves.
"I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction an I apologize to all involved," Rep. Bob Etheridge said in a statement. "No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response."
Etheridge, a congressman in North Carolina since 1997, reiterated his apology at a hastily called news conference Monday afternoon.
"The truth is I had a long day," he said. "I've had bad days many times. It's not a good crutch to lean on and I won't use that."
The video was posted Monday on websites owned by Andrew Breitbart, the conservative Web entrepreneur who also released video of workers for the community organizing group ACORN counseling actors posing as a pimp and prostitute.
It shows two men approaching Etheridge with a camera on a Washington street. He swats at the camera and repeatedly asks the men who they are. When they say they are students, he grabs one by the wrist and quickly by the back of the neck before pulling him against his side.
The video is interspersed with several screens of text, including: "What happens when a US congressman meets a college kid on a street in Washington?" and a few frames later, "He goes BERSERK!"
In a telephone interview from London, Breitbart declined to name the students who recorded the video, saying he wanted to protect them. The two do not work for Breitbart and were not paid, he said.
A Breitbart employee found the video online, edited it and posted it, he said. A story accompanying the video on a Breitbart website says the video was recorded last week. Etheridge declined to say when the encounter occurred.
A Breitbart website later posted what it described as unedited video of the encounter taken from two camera angles.
Etheridge's Republican opponent in the November election, Renee Ellmers, said at a news conference that the apology was not enough but also said Etheridge deserved the benefit of the doubt.
"As a mom, I am very concerned about what happened to those college kids," said Ellmers, 46, a registered nurse who decided to run for office after speaking out against the federal health care overhaul at tea party events.
State GOP Chairman Tom Fetzer, though, predicted the incident would be "devastating" to Etheridge's re-election bid.
"This is an angry man who behaved very inappropriately," Fetzer said.
Associated Press writers Gary D. Robertson and Tom Breen contributed to this report.

Free Gilad Shalit

Gilad Shalit has not been visited by The Red Cross in four years. He is the Israeli soldier that was kidnapped by Hamas, who crossed over the Israeli border to do so. There has been no communication from Shalit since.

Say No To Hamas. Say No to the "Palestinians" No Peace until they stop the rape of the Jews.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Friday, June 11, 2010

Thursday, June 10, 2010

I'm Jack Benny Today


OK OK I Know this has that asshole Paul McCartney but I needed the song.

When I was a little girl my grandparents used to call me on the phone and sing Happy Birthday. It embarrassed me. They were so thrilled to do this. I've officially become old. Why? Well, because I truly appreciate this memory now.

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

I Am Israel

Hat Tip

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Some Questions For the "Jewish" Blogger I'm Debating

Dear "Jewish" blogger who denigrates Israel on her blog and believes that Israel's actions cause their problems I challenge you to use that same logic...that same "their actions cause their problems" to answer the following questions:

Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory.

Does this declaration not qualify in your theory that this should cause a blockage by Israel of any ships seeking passage into Gaza?

In 1962  John Kennedy imposed a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry? Was the US committing an illegal act against the Cubans?

Since Israel traded Sinai with Egypt for peace shouldn't this have resulted in PEACE considering Israel's actions? After all Israel took that piece of land which was barren and used to start a defensive war against Israel, and won it in defensive of it's own nation's survival and built it up, found oil and made refineries and built hotels and gave all that infrastructure to Egypt for PEACE. Simply for PEACE.

In 2005 Israel made GAZA Judenrein. While the "palestinians" demand that they can live in Israel proper they also simultaneously demand that no Jews be allowed to live in Gaza or the "West Bank" Judea and Samaria. Israel pulled out the Jews, forcefully and Americans paid for the greenhouses and other infrastructure that the Israeli's built while there in order to give to the Gazans Muslims/Arabs. I watched the Muslims roll in and burn every building down, houses, greenhouses all of it in a matter of hours out of pure hatred for Jews and anything a Jew touched.

So now the Hamas are the rulers there. Shouldn't Hamas be responsible for their own people? Since  Israel gives money to the palis and sends in truckloads of supplies out of Israeli money each day but is forced to give it to the government in Gaza for the people, and the government is Hamas, if the people there are starving [which they are not] isn't it Hamas that is starving their own people? And if the people there voted for The Hamas isn't it their own actions that caused their starving?

According to you it is ALWAYS Israel's fault. It is always Israel's policies to be looked into, deconstructed and blamed. And according to you if I point this out I'm just one of those militant American Jews.

According to you Israel has no legitimate right to defend itself because each step they take you demand that THEY change their ways because it is their actions not the other side that causes what Israel must do to defend the lives -- THE LIVES of their own people, with which you share a bloodline. And with which you will be dragged on the cattle cars with even as you protest how you were on their side against Israel, and shouldn't that save your own life. Pshaw.

Female On Muslim TV Calls For Arab Men to Rape Jewess's As Way Of Resistance


Chuck Devore is Pro Israel. He "Get's It."

Chuck Devore said this past weekend at a Pro Israel Rally in Los Angeles: 

"It is never wrong to starve a movement that thinks the Holocaust was simply a good start. The fight between Israel and Hamas is a fight between civilization and barbarisim. It is as simple as that."

"America stands against Israel's enemies for the same reason it stood against Nazism and fascism and Communism. I say clearly that the enemies of Israel are just as genocidal and just as tyrannical and just as savage as those defeated movements. The defenders of the Gaza flotilla say it was just a humanitarian mission. They say they were peace activists. They lie!!"

Monday, June 7, 2010

There Sadly Will Always Be Braindead Moronic Jews. Here's One Who Blogs.

A mutual blog friend sent me to this link where I found this horrid hit piece on Israel and the Armada of Hate. And even though I left a comment there, the blog writer decided to come to MY BLOG to reply rather than letting her readers see the debate where it was started and belongs. She's clearly challenged in the brain cell department. Her rationalizing of things to make them fit what she would like them to be rather than what is and what is proper is just pathetic. I'm going to list her comments to me here below her story and our few replies via email because that is the only place she'd let them live.

She's so pathetic that she claims that the Israeli's falsified the video but not the TERRORISTS with embedded media on their boat nor the Turks. She's a self-hating Jew. And it's so pathetically sad. She's what is known as a KAPO. Kapos were Jews that turned in other Jews to the NAZI's and sent them to their deaths in order to save their own lives. They were killed in the end.  You see to people this moron aligns with, there's no good Jew but a dead one.

Here's her post. You can go to her site to see the one comment she allowed. below is her email to me where she tried to post on a post on my site which is irrelevant, and would confuse readers for obvious reasons and my response to her and hers back etc. Please do comment here on the blog about this and go to hers and try to get your comments up as well.

SUNDAY, JUNE 06, 2010
Israel: WTF?
I know I come across as only being interested in the inconsequential, but I've actually been spending all my spare time following the flotilla crisis. No kids, no vomit, no mice - just 40 years of poor domestic policy on the part of the Israelis and at least a decade of lousy foreign policy on our part, all coming home to roost in a situation where a good ally of ours (Turkey) is rightly furious, another ally of ours (Israel) is manipulating evidence, and the White House is dithering. Oh, and nine people are dead. And journalists' photos and tapes are confiscated.

[That link up there, and the articles and blogs it links to, are really informative. Much better than this stuff I'm spouting here...]

My generation of American Jews was brainwashed to believe that criticism of Israeli policies is de facto anti-Semitic. Any Jew who dared question Israeli conduct in the West Bank, or Gaza, or anywhere else in the world was labeled "self-hating." It was an effective way to silence dissent.

But what we need to realize is that any actions that desecrate the sacred memory of our slaughtered Jewish ancestors are what is really anti-Semitic. And the Israeli actions against oppressed populations? Definitely fall into that category.

The reflexive defense of Israel by American Jews (on the Right and the Left) is examined by Glenn Greenwald here, who is right on the mark. The Jews of my generation were inculcated from a young age with warnings of Israel's vulnerability. I remember my 5th-grade teacher saying, "The Palestinians? They are terrorists. All of them. The women, the children - they are all terrorists."

It's hard to blame her - she and the other teachers were traumatized survivors of the Holocaust, witnesses to the War for Independence (1948) and the 6-Day War (1967).... in their minds, Israel was still the threatened new nation in which so many Holocaust survivors had found refuge. But our parents' reality is not ours. For most of our lifetimes, Israel has been an occupying force in the Palestinian territories (its presence in the West Bank I have already discussed here); it fields a formidable, well-equipped army and even has nuclear weapons (shh, it's a secret). To continue to claim that it is vulnerable to a few Katyusha rockets is ridiculous. To believe that they must invade a neighboring country with overwhelming force in order to secure its borders is absurd. Does Turkey invade Kurdish Iraq, slaughtering over a thousand people and destroying a large portion of the civil infrastructure, when terrorists sneak over its borders?

Really, what do such actions do but produce even more instability in an already unstable situation? Israel says it is fighting terrorism - but it is actually producing more terrorists.

It behooves American Jews to speak up on this topic. Israel is not always right. Israel is faced with a marginalized, oppressed Palestinian population that is the result of 40 years of poor policy choices on the part of the Israeli government. No amount of military might will make that go away. It's time for Israel to admit its mistakes and find a new way forward, a way of cooperation and peace. It is a strong enough nation to do so now. It just doesn't seem to realize that.

[Addendum: Check out these eyewitness accounts, if you are still buying the sanitized video put out by the Israeli government. I really think that official video is what bothers me the most. It is a deliberately constructed lie.]

PLEASE see my comment on her blog. The below is her response to a post here on my blog which really belonged on her blog. But you know how these moron progressives are:

Hi! If you are interested in direct replies to your comments on other blogs, you might want to enable public access to your email address (check the box on your Blogger profile page). In the meantime, I will answer you here!

Thanks for commenting on my blog post. I think we can both agree on this fact: many people who are complaining about Israel's actions do so because (ultimately) they are anti-Semitic. I totally get that. All I am saying is that there are people who disagree with how the Israeli government has handled the occupation of the last 40 years who are not anti-Semitic. Israel tends to point to the former and say, "See? They hate us. We have to do this." This approach produces a never-ending cycle of hatred and violence. 

What I am saying is Israel is strong and secure enough now to rise above that approach. Yes, there will still be terrorism; there will still be violence. But Israel is strong enough now to take the high road and set an example for the rest of the Middle East.

Israel for years has been pointing to other countries and saying, "But they're worse!" That's not a good enough reason to do what they have been doing to the populations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. I do understand that it suits the "thugocracies" (as you put it so well) perfectly fine to have a permanently homeless Arab Palestinian (both Christian and Muslim) population residing in poverty in refugee camps. None of those countries are in any rush to rectify that situation; they would rather just blame Israel for it. But Israel has no control over the actions of these countries. And to let these countries control how Israel acts (which is what Israel is letting them do, by responding on a hair trigger to every provocation) is not the wise choice, policy-wise. Israel is no longer the young, threatened upstart it was. It needs to take its rightful place among the advanced, civilized nations of this world and find reasonable solutions to the problems of the West Bank and Gaza.

Yes, it is unfair that the other countries do nothing. But why should they? They benefit politically from the current situation every time Israel reacts. Israel should stop giving them that gift. Yes, they will find fault with Israel no matter what it does. But then, shouldn't Israel at least do the right thing?

I do realize that the pre-1948 situation is way more complicated than most people think. But I can't fit all that into a blog post. And it doesn't change how Israel should be acting now. Yes, wrongs were done, we receive blame we shouldn't have. But it is 2010. It is not 1948. Israel doesn't seem to realize that. 

My response:

[I tried many times to post my comment on your blog but you blocked my URL for some reason. tsk tsk. I know this because I tested posting on my own blog and it had no problems posting.]

You should have commented back on your blog not mine: So I'll do it for you and respond where it belongs:
- Show quoted text -
Actually you're wrong on so many accounts. First if you look at world events starting in the 30's and leading up to WWII it is EXACTLY the same as it was in 1939. So yes it's not QUITE 48 again YET!

Israel has ALWAYS extended their hand in peace. Israel ALWAYS makes concessions that no other country has/does or will. Israel is ALWAYS attacked not the other way around. Both in the media and literally.

The UN declared Israel a state and all it's MUSLIM neighbors attacked Israel immediately.

The "Palis" were offered this same slice of land since 1948 and they rejected it with the famous three NO's. Look it up. Facts and logic would do you some good.

Israel did not nor does not occupy anything. You spread propaganda with that word. Stop using it. In 1967 Israel was attacked. Before 1967 JORDAN occupied the West Bank but you my dear did not cry foul then. THAT is what makes you antisemetic, yes you the Jew are an antisemite along with your lovely friends you think you have.

The King of Jordan unlawfully took over by force the West Bank. Egypt took Gaza unlawfully.

Where was your outrage then?! Where was the outrage of your pathetic jew hating commenters.

Green girl needs to stick her head in a book before she joins her progressive moronic friends calling me and other Jew militant. It is with every progressive rally that I see horrible militant terrorists that march with her and her buddies. Her kill the Jews buddies. And yes I have the proof. I unlike you and she can back my words up. 

BTW obviously my name linked to my blog making me public so spare me the BS about how to link to me. You found me in three seconds. That statement alone shows me how weak you are in being factual.

Israel does NOT point to others saying they are worse. Show me in the press where Israel has done this. Cite a legitimate statement from ISRAEL where they've done so.

But the truth is that Israel is the ONLY country to EVER EVER EVER offer these Muslim/Arabs any land. 

NEVER EVER has any country offered them this before in history.

The UN offered in 1948 and they said no.
Jordan killed or deported them to the West Bank. Egypt condemned them to stay in GAZA.
Not one Arab nation took these people in.

Every country in the ME kicked out their Jews in 1948. Those that stayed were severely punished.  Israel took those Jews in. Israel also allowed the arabs living there to stay and have representation in the Knesset.

You ask why should the Arab countries do anything for these people and then you answer your own question. Correct, they benefit by setting up the Israelis- JEWS through the media when they provoke and attack and force these same people to live as you say.

Now as for refuge camps. That's another big lie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJvvkXYD12U&feature=player_embedded

This is from their own PR. Shall I post more photos of what it looks like where they live? They have huge universities that the Israelis paid for because THE HAMAS won't nor will the PA. They have sewers and roads and cities and large buildings.

You are just so mislead and wrong it's very sad. You buy into this garbage and eat it like it's filet mignon. 

You should read Walid Shoebat who was a Palestinian Terrorist. Or try Nonie Darwish who's father was a Palestinian Terrorist. Or Brigette Gabriel. Just a few to start. 

Don't leave me a comment on my blog referring to your post. It's weak and inappropriate. You started this conversation on your blog and that is where the debate should be. If you have something to say about my posts specifically you're more than welcome there.

Her response:
I was out of the house and did not block your URL!  I don't even know how to do that!  I do moderate comments, however; so sometimes there is a time delay between when you send and when the comment is posted. 

I did not reply to your comment in my comments because I wanted to let your comments and those of others stand without my shooting them down/getting into a shouting match.  If I have the time, I will address them in a future post - I think it is so important for Jewish-Americans to have discussions on this issue, rather than shouting each other down.

BTW obviously my name linked to my blog making me public so spare me the BS about how to link to me. You found me in three seconds. That statement alone shows me how weak you are in being factual.
Sweetheart, it wasn't BS.  I was simply saying that I could have replied directly to your comment by email (rather than cluttering up your comments section), if you enable access to your email.  That's all.  That's how you were able to reply to my comment.  I wasn't accusing you of hiding.  I was just asking you to make it even easier to carry on this conversation.

You seem to be assuming bad intentions on my part towards you.  There is no reason for you to think that.  I responded to your comment in good faith.

I think you have some interesting points to make in this missive, but the tone is a bit too vituperative for my comments section right now.   If you could take out the insults (especially the ones aimed at my other commenters), your arguments would be more effective and would help my readers understand the complexity involved with the Palestinian/Israeli situation. Please consider posting a less vituperative version to my comments section.  So many people have no idea of all the history behind these conflicts.

 I do not disagree with you that the other Arab nations are incredibly hypocritical.  They are.  But I don't think Turkey is one of them.   And Israel cannot let their behavior drive its actions and force it to make lousy policy decisions.  Neither can Israel let the events of 1948 drive its policy decisions.  I know it is said that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.  But in the Israeli case, it looks as if those who do know history are doomed to repeat it, also.

 If Israel had managed the territories it took/won in 1967 differently, we wouldn't have this awful situation now.  It could have co-opted enough Palestinians that the extremists/terrorists would not have had anyone to win over.  It was a lost opportunity.

I know there are evil Palestinians.  I'm not an idiot.  I know there is intense anti-Semitism in the Mideast.  I've been there.  But I've also heard perfectly pleasant, decent Israelis say, "The only good Arab is a dead Arab."  I'm not buying that.  And you shouldn't either.

My response:
Spare me your ten dollar words like  "vituperative" especially when you show your true colors and only use them toward one side. When you let your readers make comments calling people like myself militant you show bias and I'll keep my comments as I see them. I was very clear with you and pointed out your wrongness and inconsistencies. Turkey is horrid. They committed genocide on the Armenians and a million other atrocities. To send a boat to break a legal blockage to save lives of JEWS filled with terrorists is the illegal act, is the morally horrid act and that you either refuse to see it or are just stupid is the sad part in this all. Don't write me back. Either address it where it belongs on your blog and don't tell me how to write or what to feel, as you so clearly wish to have that right or show your true colors and make it a one -sided debate just like you side with the monster Muslims on. Shame on you. You're just a Kapo.

Sunday, June 6, 2010

No Mosque At Ground Zero!

"Islam despises what America is. It rejects everything America stands for including freedom and DIVERSITY."

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Malawi, Senegal, Zimbabwe, Uganda Amongst 37 African Nations with Anti-Gay Laws

The Story is below in case it gets scrubbed. You see it's about African nations, black African nations and it's NOT pretty.
Black African Countries with laws against being gay:
Malawi is among 37 African countries with anti-gay laws.
Uganda, a proposed law would impose the death penalty for some gays

Calling Al. Come out come out wherever your biggottted ass is.

Malawi's president: pardon and release gay couple

Tiwonge Chimbalanga, Steven MonjezaAP – FILE - In this photo taken Thursday May, 20, 2010 file photo, Tiwonge Chimbalanga, foreground, and Steven …

BLANTYRE, Malawi – Malawi's president on Saturday pardoned and ordered the release of a gay couple sentenced to 14 years in prison, but said that homosexuality remains illegal in this conservative southern African nation.
Activists were searching for a safe house for the couple, fearing they could be attacked upon release.
Malawi has faced international condemnation for the conviction and harsh sentencing of Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza.President Bingu wa Mutharika announced the pardon, saying it was on "humanitarian grounds only," during a press conference with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Lilongwe, the capital.
Earlier in the week, the top U.N. AIDS official and the head of an international donor organization met Mutharika in Malawi and expressed concern that criminalizing homosexuality would keep a vulnerable group from seeking HIV/AIDS counseling and treatment.
Joseph Amon of Human Rights Watch said the president was no doubt responding to the international outcry over the case.
"I hope that other leaders of African countries with anti-gay laws see that this is just not acceptable in the international community," Amon told The Associated Press by telephone from New York.
Malawi is among 37 African countries with anti-gay laws.
In Senegal police have rounded up men suspected of being homosexual and beaten them, and a mob last year pulled the corpse of a gay man from his grave, spat on it and dumped it at the home of his elderly parents.
In Zimbabwe this month, two employees of a gay organization spent six days in jail on allegations of possessing indecent material and displaying a placard seen as insulting to President Robert Mugabe, an outspoken critic of homosexuality.
In Uganda, a proposed law would impose the death penalty for some gays.
Even in South Africa, the only country that recognizes gay rights, lesbians have been gang-raped.
In Malawi, a judge convicted and sentenced Chimbalanga and Monjeza earlier this month on charges of unnatural acts and gross indecency, both colonial-era laws. They were arrested in December, a day after they celebrated their engagement.
Crowds of Malawians had heckled the two during court hearings, with some saying after they were sentenced to 14 years at hard labor — the harshest possible sentence — that they should be imprisoned longer.
Undule Mwakasungure, a gay rights activist in Malawi, told The AP Saturday he was concerned about the couple's safety, and working with other activists to find a safe house for them and possible arrange for them to leave the country at least temporarily.
"There is homophobic sentiment. I think they might be harmed," Mwakasungure said.
Edi Phiri, who fled Malawi for Britain five years ago after being beaten because he was gay, said the two might need to seek asylum outside of Malawi.
"They will be out of prison, but what will happen next?" Phiri said. "The community will see them as outcasts. I don't think they will be safe in Malawi."
A cousin of Chimbalanga, Maxwell Manda, told The AP earlier in the week that Chimbalanga wanted to leave Malawi upon his release.
Mwakasungure and Phiri said the pardon was welcome and could fuel campaigns to overturn Malawi's anti-gay legislation and try to change attitudes.
"The public needs to appreciate that the world is changing," Mwakasungure said. "It won't be easy. But I think that as time goes, people will start to appreciate. We're not talking about changing the law today or tomorrow. But we have to start the process."
Mutharika's comments Saturday underlined the challenge activists face.
"These boys committed a crime against our culture, against our religion, and against our laws," Mutharika said. "However, as head of state, I hereby pardon them and therefore order their immediate release without any conditions."
But he added, "We don't condone marriages of this nature. It's unheard of in Malawi and it's illegal."
Ban praised Mutharika's decision but said, "It is unfortunate that laws criminalize people based on sexuality. Laws that criminalize sexuality should be repealed."
While the order was immediate, a prison spokesman told The AP they had not received notification to release the two men by Saturday afternoon.
Mwakasungure, the activist, said he hoped the release would be delayed until Monday or Tuesday, to give him time to prepare a safe house.
Associated Press writer Donna Bryson contributed to this report from Johannesburg.