Thursday, August 18, 2016

Prospects For Whites Not Favorable. Previously No Not A Ransom and Now Yes, Was Ransom. Obama and Hillary Just Can't Tell The Truth. Drink Beer!

                                                                                    Eve Had Two Faces.  How many does Hillary?
Blacks kill blacks, Muslims kill Muslims.  Future prospects for whites not favorable. (See 1 below.)
Prager and I on the same page when it comes to Trump vs Hillary.  (See 2 below.)
CAMERA is an outstanding organization and it is about time Jewish students fight back.

When you do not fight back bigots, fascists and thugs win by default.

Obama's 'turn the other cheek approach' is not the road map to follow unless you place defeat above everything else. (See 3 below.)

Today, Obama admitted the $400 million payment to Iran was a ransom but why did it take him so long?  Why does he believe we are dummies.? The answer is that we voted him in as president and then did it a second time.
I am not a beer drinker but after reading these wise comments I might start.  (See 4 below.)


By Douglas Murray
  • Mr Shah's murderer was a Sunni Muslim, Tanveer Ahmed, who had traveled to Glasgow to kill Mr Shah because he believed Mr Shah had “disrespected the Prophet Mohammed.” At this point the comfortable narratives of modern Britain began to fray.
  • If Mr Shah's murderer had been a non-Muslim, there would be a concerted effort by the entirety of the media and political class to find out what inspirations and associations the murderer had. Specifically, they would want to know if there was anybody — especially any figure of authority — who had ever called for the murder of Muslim shopkeepers. Yet when a British Muslim kills another British Muslim for alleged “apostasy” and local religious authorities are found to have praised or mourned the killers of people accused of “apostasy,” the same people cannot bother to stir themselves.
Earlier this year there was a murder that shocked Britain. Just before Easter, a 40-year old shopkeeper in Glasgow, Asad Shah, was repeatedly stabbed in his shop; he died in the road outside. The news immediately went out that this was a religiously-motivated attack. But the type of religiously motivated attack it was came as a surprise to most of Britain.
There is so much attention paid to the idea of “Islamophobia” in the country that many people — including some Muslim groups — immediately assumed that the killing of Asad Shah was an “Islamophobic” murder. It turned out, however, that the man who had been detained by police — and this week sentenced to a minimum of 27 years in prison for the murder — was also a Muslim.
Mr Shah was an Ahmadiyya Muslim — that is, a member of the peaceable Islamic sect which is dismissed as “heretical” by many Muslims. Mr Shah's murderer, on the other hand, was a Sunni Muslim, Tanveer Ahmed, who had travelled up from Bradford to kill Mr Shah because he believed Mr Shah had “disrespected the Prophet Mohammed.” At this point the comfortable narratives of modern Britain began to fray.

Asad Shah was murdered in Glasgow, Scotland by Tanveer Ahmed, a fellow Muslim who claimed Shah had “disrespected the Prophet Mohammed” by wishing Christians a Happy Easter.
While everyone would have known what to do, what to say and where to start hunting for connections if such an atrocity had been committed by a non-Muslim against a Muslim, politicians and others were uncertain what to do when it turned out to be a Muslim-on-Muslim crime. If, for instance, the crime, had been committed by a non-Muslim against a Muslim, political leaders such as Scotland's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, would have immediately sought to trace links to anyone who had called for, or approved of, any such act. But beneath this murder lay a whole iceberg that Sturgeon and others have still shown no interest in investigating.
Usually after terrorist attacks, it is traditional for Sturgeon and other Scottish politicians to traipse off to the local mosque, to say that of course the attack has nothing to do with Islam, and otherwise to reassure the Scottish Muslim community. Yet the mosque most often frequented for this trip — and the largest mosque in Scotland — is the Glasgow Central Mosque. Sturgeon has met its leaders many times, including after the Paris attacks last November. Those leaders include Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman. Just a month before the killing of Mr Shah in Glasgow, this Glasgow Imam gave his response to the hanging in Pakistan of Mumtaz Qadri — the man who murdered Salman Taseer, the governor of Pakistan's Punjab province, for his opposition to blasphemy laws.
Reacting to the hanging of Salman Taseer's assassin, Imam Rehman said, among other things, “I cannot hide my pain today. A true Muslim was punished for doing which [sic] the collective will of the nation failed to carry out.” The statement is a pretty clear justification of the actions of Taseer's assassin, and as close as you can get to advocating others carry out similar actions against people deemed to be outside a particular interpretation of Islam.
Of course, if Mr Shah's murderer had been a non-Muslim, there would be a concerted effort by the entirety of the media and political class to find out what inspirations and associations the murderer had. Specifically, they would want to know if there was anybody — especially any figure of authority — who had ever, for instance, called for the murder of Muslim shopkeepers. Yet when a British Muslim kills another British Muslim for alleged “apostasy,” and local religious authorities are found to have praised or mourned the killers of people accused of “apostasy,” the same people cannot bother to stir themselves. There is talk of being “taken out of context” or there are warnings not to “generalise” or be “Islamophobic” or any number of other fatuous get-out clauses.
What happened this week in court when Tanveer Ahmed was found guilty and sentenced for the murder of Asad Shah was even more revealing. After the judge read out the sentence, Tanveer Ahmed raised his fist and started shouting in Arabic “There is only one prophet.” Supporters, who made up around half the people in the public gallery, joined in with his cries. All of which made it understandable that the family of Mr Shah had been too terrified to turn up in court during the trial of their relative's murderer, and are apparently planning to leave Scotland.
Then, outside the court, a news reporter from LBC Radio confronted some of the murderer's family members. The video is worth watching. “Did Asad Shah deserve to die?” he asks the killer's family as they head to their car. They refuse to comment.
When another supporter is asked whether he thinks it was “respectful” for the killer to do the chanting he did in the dock, he becomes threatening and says, “Yeah, he's respecting his prophet. He's saying 'I love my prophet'. What's wrong with that?” Asked if he thinks the sentence was fair, the man replies “No.” Asked in what way, he replies, “No comment.”
It is, of course, a good thing that the criminal justice system has done its job and done it swiftly. Asad Shah's murderer has been brought to justice and been given a suitably long sentence. But this case should have provided a learning moment for politicians, the media and wider society to finally understand the full threat to our society that this type of fanaticism poses, as well as a realistic awareness of how widespread that fanaticism actually is. Instead, on glimpsing for a moment how deeply this problem goes, it seems that the UK has decided once again to turn away and avert its gaze, for fear of what it might otherwise find out.
Douglas Murray, a British author, news analyst and commentator, is based in London, England.

Given The Alternative, I’ll Take Trump

 During the presidential primaries I devoted many hours of radio and many columns to criticizing Donald Trump. His nomination caused me grief as an American, a Republican, and a conservative. That his character defects, gaps in knowledge on some important issues, and lack of identifiably conservative principles meant little to so many Republican voters is quite troubling.

(Though, I might add, it is even more troubling that virtually all Democrats ignored the even worse character of Hillary Clinton, as well as the idiotic socialist ideas of Sen. Bernie Sanders.)

Anti-Trump conservatives such as Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro, Bret Stephens, and George Will are not merely people I admire – they are friends and colleagues. Goldberg, Stephens, and Will have made multiple videos for my Prager University website that have received millions of views. Shapiro and I have spent Shabbat together. I have had the privilege of writing for Kristol’s Weekly Standard magazine and hosting him on my radio show many times. And I have enthusiastically promoted their books.
These individuals are special to me not only as thinkers, but as people. However, in the final analysis, I do not find their arguments compelling.

The choice this November is tragic. As often happens in life, the choice is between bad and worse, not bad and good.
But America has made that choice before. When forced to choose between bad and worse, we supported Stalin against Hitler, and we supported right-wing authoritarians against Communist totalitarians.

It seems to me that anti-Trump conservatives want to remain morally pure. I understand that temptation. I am tempted, too. But if you wish to vanquish the bad, it is not possible – at least not on this side of the afterlife – to remain pure.

The most moving interview of my 33 years in radio was with Irene Opdyke, a Polish Catholic woman. Opdyke became the mistress of a married Nazi officer in order to save the lives of 12 Jews. She hid them in the cellar of the officer’s house in Warsaw. There were some Christians who called my show to say Opdyke’s actions were wrong, that she had in fact sinned because she knowingly committed a mortal sin. In their view, she compromised Catholic/Christian doctrine.

In my view – and, I believe, the view of most Catholics and other Christians – she brought glory to her God and her faith. Why? Because circumstances almost always determine what is moral, even for religious people like myself who believe in moral absolutes.That’s why the act of dropping atom bombs on Japan was moral. The circumstances (ending a war that would otherwise continue taking millions of lives) made moral what under other circumstances would be immoral.

In the 2016 presidential race, I am not interested in moral purity. I am interested in defeating the left and its political arm, the Democratic Party. The notion (expressed by virtually every anti-Trump conservative) that we can live with another four years of a Democratic president is, forgive me, mind-boggling.

To that end, with at least one, and probably multiple, additional leftists on the Supreme Court, a Republican presidential victory in 2020 would mean little. All the left needs is the judicial branch, especially the Supreme Court. Left-wing judges pass so many left-wing laws that they render those who control Congress, and even the White House, almost irrelevant.

Here, then, are nine reasons (there are more) why a conservative should prefer a Trump presidency to a Democratic presidency:

* Prevent a left-wing Supreme Court.
* Increase the defense budget.

* Repeal, or at least modify, the Dodd-Frank act.

* Prevent Washington, D.C., from becoming a state and giving the Democrats another two permanent senators.

* Repeal Obamacare.

* Curtail illegal immigration, a goal that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with xenophobia or nativism (just look at Western Europe).

* Reduce job-killing regulations on large and small businesses.

* Lower the corporate income tax and bring back hundreds of billions of offshore dollars to the United States.

* Continue fracking, which the left, in its science-rejecting hysteria, opposes.

For these reasons, I, unlike my friends, could not live with my conscience if I voted to help the left win the presidency.

I just don’t understand how anyone who understands the threat the left and the Democrats pose to America would refuse to vote for the only person who at this point can stop them.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++33) Amid rise in anti-Semitism, pro-Israel students prepare for challenging year

By Sean Savage/
For most students, the dog days of August are one final chance for summer traditions such as hitting the beach or visiting national parks with their family before heading back to campus.
For dozens of pro-Israel college students, however, learning about ways combat increasing campus anti-Semitism and anti-Israel activism was their focus during summer’s final weeks.
Over 80 college students from nearly 70 campuses around the world attended the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America’s (CAMERA) student conference in Boston, Massachusetts Aug. 7-10.
Pro-Israel students at the 2016 CAMERA student conference. Credit: CAMERA. 

Rezwan Haq, a student at the University of Central Florida, addressing the 2016 CAMERA student conference. Credit: CAMERA."Reports of intimidation on campus are becoming all too common across the globe," said Aviva Slomich, CAMERA's international campus director. "Unfortunately campus anti-Semitism seems to be on the rise, which explains why so many students are eager to learn the skills that are offered at CAMERA's conference."
The program comes at a critical time for Jewish and pro-Israel students. A recent report by the AMCHA Initiative found an alarming spike in campus anti-Semitism during the first half of 2016.
“Nearly 100 more incidents of antisemitism occurred on campus during the first six months of 2016 compared with the first six months of 2015,” according to the AMCHA Initiative’s mid-year study.
Anti-Semitic activity was twice as likely to occur on campuses where BDS (the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign) was present, eight times more likely to occur on campuses with at least one active anti-Zionist student group such as SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine), and six times more likely to occur on campuses with one or more faculty boycotter, the report noted.
Now in its sixth year, the CAMERA conference seeks to help students learn necessary skills for dealing with anti-Israel activists on campus. The three-day event tackles a number of important issues for students, ranging from educational seminars on the BDS movement to learning about bias in the media. Additionally, the conference allows students to put the knowledge they gain from the seminars to practical use, such as learning about techniques on how to talk with extreme anti-Israel activists on campus and how to work within student government to fight BDS resolutions. These all culminate in an impassioned mock BDS hearing on the last day, where students experience first-hand the challenges they may face during the school year.
"What we offer students is high-level intellectual training and emotional support to meet the challenges of the modern college campus," said Gilad Skolnick, CAMERA's campus program director. "Throughout the year we give students the resources to counter anti-Israel activity on campus, such as providing films, speakers, teach-ins, rallies all funded by CAMERA."
Rezwan Haq, a University of Central Florida economics and political science student, told that the CAMERA conference helped him set the foundation to combat anti-Israel activity on campus.
Rezwan Haq, a student at the University of Central Florida, addressing the 2016 CAMERA student conference. Credit: CAMERA.
“I thought that the CAMERA conference was phenomenal and it truly arms [us] with knowledge and information to combat anti-Israeli rhetoric and BDS on college campuses. I look forward to working with CAMERA during the upcoming school year,” he said.
Haq, however, is not your normal pro-Israel student. He shared his unique experience at the conference in session called “Why I left SJP and joined a CAMERA supported group.”
Raised Muslim, Haq is a first generation immigrant who moved to the United States from Bangladesh at 13. His default inclination was to support the Palestinians because they were also Muslim.
“As I child, I knew I supported Palestine, I just didn't know why,” he said.
Upon entering school, Haq reached out to his local Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a pro-Palestinian activist group that champions the BDS movement on campuses and is often in direct conflict with pro-Israel student groups. Haq said he was outraged at images of Palestinians suffering from the 2014 summer war between Israel and the Palestinian terror group Hamas. He later helped his SJP group bring to campus the “Israeli Apartheid Wall,” which seek to highlight Israel’s treatment of Palestinians by mimicking the security barrier between Israel and the West.
Yet it was that very same wall, meant to protest Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, which led him to become an advocate for Israel and attend the CAMERA conference.
“Ironically, it was at the Israeli Apartheid Wall was when I spoke to a former IDF (Israel Defense Forces) soldier for the first time in my life. Before then, I used to believe that IDF soldiers were terrorists yet [we] had a genuine conversation when he shared the story of his best friend being killed during ‘Operation Protective Edge,’” Haq said.
“It was at that moment when the image I held of IDF soldiers were humanized,” he added. “I realized that [I] and this former IDF soldier both wanted peace, we just had a different way of going about it.”
Calling it a moment of clarity, Haq’s interaction with the former IDF soldier set off a frenzy of learning for him. He realized that many pro-Palestinian organizations never hold Palestinian leadership accountable for their actions and that they solely exist to slander Israel,” he said.
Also at the conference, students heard first-hand from others who experienced high levels of anti-Israel activism on campus and fought against BDS resolutions.
Jason Storch, a senior pre-med student from Long Island, NY at Vassar College, got involved in pro-Israel advocacy after witnessing the “increasing level of tolerance towards open hostility at anyone so much as on-the-fence about BDS or Israel as a whole,” he
“I felt it necessary to at least lend an alternative viewpoint I knew was being withheld from the discussion,” Storch said. “I plan to continue evaluating the situation in the Middle East and coming to various conclusions based on the events, but I cannot see myself not advocating for Israel. So long as there is one liberal democracy amid a sea of tyranny, the decision seems less than challenging.”
Vassar College, a liberal arts school in New York’s Hudson Valley, has been known as a hotbed of ant-Israel activism for years. Recently it was at the forefront of the debate over whether or not to support the BDS movement.  In March, the Vassar Student Association (VSA) voted to endorse the BDS movement. However, after an outcry from pro-Israel groups, alumni and school’s administration, a second vote was held, and the resolution was defeated.
“Vassar as a campus is of course highly anti-Israel, however it is important to remember this manifests itself through an only decent-sized minority asserting themselves the loudest,” Storch said. The whole brand of 'take no prisoners' SJP-style of pro-Palestinian activism isn’t resonating with the majority of students, he added.
While he’s encouraged by the defeat of the BDS resolution, as well as the students and faculty who finally spoke out against it, Storch remains concerned of the overall situation on campus.
“While I'm glad anti-BDS faculty have emerged, there's still a vast discrepancy that often makes students, myself included, worry that they'll be token Israel student in a class, which can be very intimidating,” Storch said.
With summer ending soon, efforts among pro-Palestinian groups targeting Israel and pro-Israel students on campus will no doubt continue in the upcoming school year. As someone who has been on both sides of the conflict, Haq believes it’s important for students to truly listen to each other in hopes of forging peace, not only on campus but for the conflict overall.
“We should put down our talking points and truly listen to what the other side has to say,” Haq said. “So if you're an Israeli or an advocate of Israel, take the time to listen to a Palestinian and vice-versa. When I heard that IDF soldier speak to me years ago, it was the first time I ever took time to listen to the other side of the story rather than be defensive. We have to understand that the only way to seek peace is for both sides to come to the table.”
4) Sometimes, after playing tennis/ golf, I reflect on all the beer I drink, I feel ashamed.Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the brewery and all of their hopes and dreams. If I didn't drink this beer, they might be out of work and their dreams would be shattered. I think, "It is better to drink this beer and let their dreams come true than be selfish and worry about my liver."
Babe Ruth
"I feel sorry for people who don't drink.When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day."
Winston Churchill

"When I read about the evils of drinking after tennis/golfing, I gave up reading."
Paul Horning
"When we drink, we get drunk.When we get drunk, we fall asleep.  When we fall asleep, we commit no sin. When we commit no sin, we go to heaven. So, let's all get drunk and go to heaven!"
George Bernard Shaw
"Beer is proof that God loves us and
wants us to be happy."
Benjamin Franklin
"Without question,the greatest invention in the history of mankind is beer.  Oh, I grant you that the wheel was also a fine invention,but the wheel does not go nearly as well with pizza."
Dave Barry
W. C. Fields
Remember "I" before "E,"except in Budweiser.
Professor Irwin Corey
To some it's a six-pack, to me it's a Support Group.
Salvation in a can!
Leo Durocher
One night at Cheers, Cliff Clavin said to his buddy, Norm Peterson:
"Well, ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members! In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells.Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells.But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine!That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.

No comments: