Have not verified but: "This may clear it up some doubts about Muslim Immigration. Apparently, Border patrol found 52 tons of guns and ammunition in 14 Conex containers disguised as furniture.
This "furniture" is for Muslim immigrants who have come to America.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION -- YAVEX USA IS A TURKISH ARMS MANUFACTURING COMPANY. THAT IS LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS in Fort Meyers, Florida.
Wonder why all those young (military age) men without children or wives are taking on the task of traveling all those miles posing as refugees? Most western nation main stream media won't cover this. They have already infiltrated the U.S. House of Representatives, thanks to the Democrats.
And:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pet Peeve
“Dear Mr. Curmudgeon,” I am occasionally asked by readers, “How long do you expect you’ll be
able to maintain your blog? After all, there only so many things to complain about. Surely, at
some point, you’ll simply run out of wrongs to right . . . Right?” Wrong. I can understand how
one might have such concerns, but as of this moment you may rest assured that the supply far
outweighs the blog’s demands. That’s because people just keep doing things incorrectly, with no
end in sight. It’s almost as if they’re deliberately trying to provide fodder for The Weekly
Curmudgeon.
This week I’ve got a lulu for you. At a time when tap water is toxic, crazy people are running
around with guns, asylum seekers are interred, criminals run the country, we’re probably going
to war, and the environment is on track to kill us all at any moment, members of the “What New
Thing Can We Be Offended By?” club have made it a priority to campaign against certain
specific language that they’ve deemed offensive.
But wait. It gets better. The group they’re concerned about offending isn’t a group of minorities.
It’s not women. It’s not LGBTQ+ folk, or Muslims, or the disabled, or even Gypsies. These
folks are looking to put a stop to our negative language about . . . animals. That’s right. They’re
worried about how what we say affects animals. Apparently, thisis the issue they feel most
deserves our focus at this moment.
Let’s get specific, yes? This all comes from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
—who apparently aren’t aware of more pressing issues. They want us to stop using expressions
such as “beating a dead horse” . . . because, presumably, it could upset the dead horses . . . or
maybe encourage the beating of dead horses. You can see the problem, of course: This horribly
offensive expression promotes dead animal abuse, and it has to stop. Of course, “beating a dead
horse” is but one of the newly banned phrases. There’s a whole bloody collection. And if we
don’t comply? Well, then we’ll be guilty of what they’ve speciously termed “speciesism.”
As a public service, the PETA folks have created a list of these insensitive animal-referencing
expressions and created alternatives that make no sense, sound idiotic, and offer a solution to a
non-problem. Their tweet and accompanying graphic read as follows:
As our understanding of social justice evolves, our language evolves
along with it.
Here’s how to remove speciesism from your daily conversations.
Stop Using Anti-Animal Language
Instead of: Say:
“Kill two birds with one stone.” “Feed two birds with one
scone.”
“Be the guinea pig.” “Be the test tube.”
“Beat a dead horse.” “Feed a fed horse.”
“Bring home the bacon.” “Bring home the bagels.”
“Take the bull by the horns.” “Take the flower by the
thorns.”
Friends, my patience for stupidity is already pretty thin, but this is the straw that broke the
camel’s back. I’m not interested in taking the flower by the thorns. Taking a flower by the thorns
is nothing like taking the bull by the horns. In fact, it comes rather near the opposite meaning.
And this is what they want us to teach the next generation. Haven’t we got bigger fish to fry?
These misguided birdbrains even went as far as to compare “speciesism” to—get ready to tear
your hair out—racismand homophobia. “Just as it became unacceptable to use racist,
homophobic, or ableist language,” they say, “phrases that trivialize cruelty to animals will vanish
as more people begin to appreciate animals for who they are and start ‘bringing home the bagels’
instead of the bacon.”
This is political correctness gone ape shit, and while some lemmings may fall for it hook, line,
and sinker, anyone who isn’t crazy as a loon can see that the comparison is outrageous. Racism
and homophobia, both of which have palpable effects on human lives, are a whole different kettle
of fish. Comparing that to “speciesism” is like comparing apples to oranges (I believe I’ve just
committed “fruitism”).
But let’s talk about the elephant in the room. Has anyone asked the poor slandered animals what
they think?
I sat down for a talk about all this with my cat. After explaining the issue in detail, Lucy assured
me that she had no idea what I was talking about . . . in that she wasn’t able to understand my
words, because she doesn’t speak human talk. Yes, we manage to communicate—mostly stuff l
ike “I’m hungry” (to which she’ll often reply “funny, I am as well”), but not much in the way of
complex ideas. So when I asked her specifically about the old saying, “There’s more than one
way to skin a cat” she purred, licked her paw, and took a nap. Either she’s highly tolerant of
“speciesism,” or, more likely, she wasn’t offended, because as it happens, Lucy does not
understand human words. I suspect she shares that in common with the vast majority of animals.
So this is the fly in the ointment. The movement to eliminate “anti-animal speech” (shoot me
now) is ludicrous because (at least according to Lucy) the animals have no bloody idea what
we’re saying. I mean, do we not all agree on that basic point? Is there any confusion there? Does
anyone think frogs are depressed because we say they’re in our throats, or that pigs are insulted
that we consider their homes metaphors for messiness, or that snakes, who often travel along the
ground, feel it’s wrong that we call nefarious people snakes in the grass? Readers, that dog
simply won’t hunt.
If it seems I’ve got a bee in my bonnet over this one, I do. And if they think I’m going to parrot
this malarkey they’re barking up the wrong tree. And so I think I’ll just call PETA’s proposal
what it is: bullshit.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I just finished reading the Naval War College Review. I have no technical competency but,over the past 30 or more years, I have learned a great deal from reading this technical journal. In the latest issue there were two articles I found of interest because they opened my eyes again to the fact that he who rules the seas can ultimately rule the world and China has set sail to do just that.
The first review: " Surging Second Sea Force" by Andrew Erickson, Joshua Hickey and Henry Holst discusses how China has developed their maritime fleet which has subsidized their military fleet and how they have a significant Coast Guard capability that outstrips that of their neighbors.
The second article: "U.S. Conventional Access Strategy" by Sam Goldsmith discusses our superior numbered nuclear capability making it highly unlikely China would initially carry out their extensive territorial claims over Taiwan, which the international community does not recognize, through a nuclear first strike.
China has constructed a vast array of underground capabilities that have been hardened against a conventional response on the assumption matters could eventually escalate to nuclear and what America must to to overcome such an escalation.
In both instances America has set about to rebuilding its seagoing fleet and shifting it's air frame fleet to stealth Bombers and longer range ballistic missiles.
Few, if any of the current Democrat Candidates, have discussed their military deterrent plans and I daresay most, if not all, are more interested in spending on seeing illegal immigrants are properly cared for.
Living in the real world carries a high cost and Biden did not see China as a threat until someone told him to rethink.
Historically speaking, whenever a Republican takes over The White House from a Democrat rebuilding our depleted military always becomes a depressing and costly reality.
Democrats are driven by social interests not protective ones. Reality is beyond their comprehension.
Obama never connected America's energy independence with our military survivability. He was far more interested we have clean air and safe drinking water (all based on mostly false, emotional science.)
As for Biden, his comment about comity with the Eastland's is a downer for most of his competitors because it reminds black voters it was Democrats who opposed their civil rights not Republicans. DUH!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The mass media and Democrats have begun the drum beat to make John Bolton the hawkish 'Fall Guy." Yet, Trump, who acknowledges he has constructed a cadre of advisors embracing all views, came to his own conclusion not to strike at this time.
Nothing Trump eventually does will be acceptable. If he does not respond he is a"chicken and has no foreign policy" and if he does he is a "war monger."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Abbas would rather continue to hate than advance prospects for his people and so ir goes. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Take the Palestinians’ ‘No’ for an Answer
They’ve rejected every peace initiative. Their no-show this week in Bahrain should be the last.
By Eugene Kontorovich
This week’s U.S.-led Peace to Prosperity conference in Bahrain on the Palestinian economy will likely be attended by seven Arab states—a clear rebuke to foreign-policy experts who said that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the Golan Heights as Israeli territory would alienate the Arab world. Sunni Arab states are lending legitimacy to the Trump administration’s plan, making it all the more notable that the Palestinian Authority itself refuses to participate.
The conference’s only agenda is improving the Palestinian economy. It isn’t tied to any diplomatic package, and the plan’s 40-page overview contains nothing at odds with the Palestinian’s purported diplomatic goals. Some aspects are even politically uncomfortable for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Given all that, the Palestinian Authority’s unwillingness to discuss economic opportunities for its own people, even with the Arab states, shows how far it is from discussing the concessions necessary for a diplomatic settlement. Instead it seeks to deepen Palestinian misfortune and use it as a cudgel against Israel in the theater of international opinion.
This isn’t the first time the Palestinians have said no. At a summit brokered by President Clinton in 2000, Israel offered them full statehood on territory that included roughly 92% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, along with a capital in Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority rejected that offer, leading Israel to up it to 97% of the West Bank in 2001. Again, the answer was no. An even further-reaching offer in 2008 was rejected out of hand. And when President Obama pressured Israel into a 10-month settlement freeze in 2009 to renew negotiations, the Palestinians refused to come to the table.
After so many rejections, one might conclude that the Palestinian Authority’s leaders simply aren’t interested in peace. Had they accepted any of the peace offers, they would have immediately received the rarest of all geopolitical prizes: a new country, with full international recognition. To be sure, in each proposal they found something not quite to their liking. But the Palestinians are perhaps the only national independence movement in the modern era that has ever rejected a genuine offer of internationally recognized statehood, even if it falls short of all the territory the movement had sought.
The best example is Israel itself, which jumped at a 1947 United Nations proposal for a Jewish state, even though it was noncontiguous and excluded Jerusalem and much of its present territory. The Arab states rejected the proposal, which would have also created a parallel Arab country.
India and Pakistan didn’t reject independence because major territorial claims were left unaddressed. Ireland accepted independence without the island’s six northern counties. Morocco didn’t refuse statehood because Spain retained land on its northern coast.
While there have been hundreds of national independence movements in modern times, few are fortunate enough to receive an offer of fully recognized sovereign statehood. Including 1947, the Palestinians have received four. From Tibet to Kurdistan, such opportunities remain a dream.
Several lessons must be drawn from the Palestinians’ serial rejection of statehood—and this week, even of economic development. First, the status quo is not Israeli “rule” or “domination.” The Palestinians can comfortably turn down once-in-a-lifetime opportunities because almost all Palestinians already live under Palestinian government. Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, they’ve enjoyed many of statehood’s trappings, particularly in foreign relations. Israel undertakes regular antiterror operations, but that’s different from overall power. For instance, the U.S. doesn’t “rule” over Afghanistan.
Second, statehood and a resolution to the conflict is not what the Palestinians truly seek. This is what economists call a “revealed preference”: To know what consumers truly want, look at what they choose. The Palestinians have repeatedly chosen the status quo over sovereignty.
Finally, throw out the assumption that when Palestinians reject an offer, it stays on the table and accrues interest. If offers will only improve with time, the Palestinians have an incentive to keep saying no.
The Palestinian Authority cannot be forced to accept a peaceful settlement, and Israel doesn’t wish to return to its pre-Oslo control over the Palestinian population. But rejectionism, culminating this week in Bahrain, must have consequences.
For more than 50 years, the future of Jewish communities in the West Bank—and the nearly half a million Jews who now live there—has been held in limbo pending a diplomatic settlement. While the authority rejects improved hospitals, port arrangements and employment centers, many of the benefits for Palestinians could still be achieved by locating them in parts of the West Bank under Israeli jurisdiction. But to do that, the question mark over these places, which include all of the Jews living in the West Bank and a much smaller number of Palestinians, must be lifted. Washington should support Israeli initiatives to replace military rule with civil law in these areas, normalizing their status. The Palestinians’ no-show in Bahrain should end their ability to hold development and growth hostage.
Mr. Kontorovich is director of the Center for International Law in the Middle East and a law professor at George Mason University, and a scholar at the Kohelet Policy Forum.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment