Featured Post

The Great Sex Robot Debate at Ideacity

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Obama Administration endangered America by ordering the purging of Islamic connections to terrorism in security documents



When Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) suggested we are still trying to “make sense” of the Orlando terror attack at Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Islamic terrorism, he all but proved Chairman Ted Cruz’s point – political correctness is jeopardizing our national security. One is only still trying to “make sense” of Orlando if one ignores the killer’s pledge to ISIS terrorism, the Texas senator insisted.

“We cannot combat and defeat radical Islamic terrorism without acknowledging it exists and directing our resources to stopping it,” Cruz said in his opening remarks. “And an Orwellian doublethink that seeks to excerpt any reference to it, as the Administration did to the president of France, or erase pledges of allegiance to ISIS, as the administration did with the Orlando terrorist, is counterproductive to keeping this country safe.”

The White House’s decision to redact the Orlando 911 transcript so there was no mention of ISIS was an action that would especially “make George Orwell proud,” he said at the hearing.

In another example of the administration's ability to make key words disappear, a 2013 Judicial Watch report revealed that the FBI scrubbed its law enforcement training material of any language that might be deemed "offensive" to Muslims. Per those guidelines, hundreds of references to "Muslim," "Islam" or "jihad" were removed from the 2004 9/11 commission report.

The witnesses provided more evidence to corroborate these findings. Mr. Philip Haney, a retired Customs and Border Protection Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, revealed that the CIA has scrubbed more than 800 law enforcement records that were almost all connected to the Muslim brotherhood.

The first “great purge,” he said, was in 2009. Yet, in 2012 they didn’t just modify the records, they eliminated them out of the system, which, he noted, bypasses security protocol in Homeland Security...

Palestinian terrorist fatally stabbed 13 year old Israeli girl as she slept


A Palestinian man stabbed and killed an Israeli teenage girl as she slept inside her home on Thursday in the West Bank settlement of Kiryat Arba. A civil security guard responding to the attack shot and killed the assailant at the scene.

The terrorist jumped the settlement's perimeter fence to get inside the isolated home, as the girl's father worked in a nearby grapevine.

Thirteen-year-old Hallel Yaffe Ariel was to be buried in nearby Hebron at 6 P.M. local time.

The Palestinian health minister identified the slain assailant as Mohammad Tra'ayra, 19, from the nearby Palestinian village of Bani Na'im...

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Nigel Farage tells MEPs: You're not laughing now

He was jeered as he addressed the parliament during an emergency debate on the UK's vote to leave the EU.

Mr Farage, who was jeered by some MEPs, said EU politicians were "in denial" about the eurozone and migration.

EC president Jean-Claude Juncker asked Mr Farage: "You were fighting for the exit, the British people voted in favour of the exit. Why are you here?"

Mr Juncker said the will of the British people must be respected, but said the Leave campaign had "fabricated reality" with some of its claims.

"Isn't it funny," Mr Farage said.

"When I came here 17 years ago and said I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the Europeans Union, you all laughed at me.

"Well you're not laughing now."...

Monday, June 27, 2016

Gay activists to march in Swedish Muslim ghetto


...“I’m going to go to Sweden in a couple of weeks and lead the parade in Sweden through the Muslim ghetto,” he announced. “A year ago, Swedish authorities told a gay march off for being too unnecessarily provocative for marching through a Muslim area. Now to my mind, the point of gay pride was always to be brave and defiant in the face of hateful social conservatism, right? I thought that was it. That’s what they’re doing.

“So I’m going to go and I’m going to be there in Sweden in a couple of weeks and march through this heavily Muslim area to remind people, and I hope it will remind people in Europe at least, what the problem is today,” he announced...

Terror being preached in Canada's mosques

Mazin AbdulAdhim, a prominent Imam of Iraqi descent in London, Ontario who is affiliated with the radical Islamic global movement of Hizb ut-Tahrir, commends a young Jordanian child preacher who called on the Muslim nation to launch jihad to liberate Palestine and prayed to Allah to annihilate the Jews the “enemies of humanity.”

The child preacher Abd Al-Aziz Al-Sayifi takes over the pulpit of mosques in Jordan and recites standard antisemitic and Jihadi texts, criticizing Arab rulers for not liberating the Al-Aqsa Mosque...

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Boris Johnson: I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe – and always will be



...It is said that those who voted Leave were mainly driven by anxieties about immigration. I do not believe that is so. After meeting thousands of people in the course of the campaign, I can tell you that the number one issue was control – a sense that British democracy was being undermined by the EU system, and that we should restore to the people that vital power: to kick out their rulers at elections, and to choose new ones. 

I believe that millions of people who voted Leave were also inspired by the belief that Britain is a great country, and that outside the job-destroying coils of EU bureaucracy we can survive and thrive as never before. I think that they are right in their analysis, and right in their choice. And yet we who agreed with this majority verdict must accept that it was not entirely overwhelming.  
There were more than 16 million who wanted to remain. They are our neighbours, brothers and sisters who did what they passionately believe was right. In a democracy majorities may decide but everyone is of equal value.  We who are part of this narrow majority must do everything we can to reassure the Remainers. We must reach out, we must heal, we must build bridges – because it is clear that some have feelings of dismay, and of loss, and confusion...
Read it all at The Telegraph

Political Correctness Gone Mad In Case Of Black Lives Matter TO

Has political correctness made everyone — most particularly our city and provincial politicians — lose all shred of common sense?

It seems so, considering Black Lives Matter TO is not only set to be honoured at the July 3 Pride parade but has also been selected to receive City Hall’s William P. Hubbard Award for Race Relations — one of five yearly Access, Equity and Human Rights awards given to leftist activists selected by other leftists who make their livelihood largely off government grants.
More at BlazingCatFur

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Brexit: A Very British Revolution

The world is looking at Britain and asking: What on Earth just happened? Those who run Britain are asking the same question.

Never has there been a greater coalition of the establishment than that assembled by Prime Minister David Cameron for his referendum campaign to keep the U.K. in the European Union. There was almost every Westminster party leader, most of their troops and almost every trade union and employers’ federation. There were retired spy chiefs, historians, football clubs, national treasures like Stephen Hawking and divinities likeKeira Knightley. And some global glamour too: President Barack Obama flew to London to do his bit, and Goldman Sachs opened its checkbook.

And none of it worked. The opinion polls barely moved over the course of the campaign, and 52% of Britons voted to leave the EU. That slender majority was probably the biggest slap in the face ever delivered to the British establishment in the history of universal suffrage.

Mr. Cameron announced that he would resign because he felt the country has taken a new direction—one that he disagrees with. If everyone else did the same, the House of Commons would be almost empty. Britain’s exit from the EU, or Brexit, was backed by barely a quarter of his government members and by not even a tenth of Labour politicians. It was a very British revolution. 
Donald Trump’s arrival in Scotland on Friday to visit one of his golf courses was precisely the metaphor that the Brexiteers didn’t want. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee cheerily declared that the British had just “taken back their country” in the same way that he’s inviting Americans to do—underscoring one of the biggest misconceptions about the EU referendum campaign. Britain isn’t having a Trump moment, turning in on itself in a fit of protectionist and nativist pique. Rather, the vote for Brexit was about liberty and free trade—and about trying to manage globalization better than the EU has been doing from Brussels...

Friday, June 24, 2016

Rex Murphy: Results of the Brexit referendum is a rebuke to Western elites


It’s an old concept I grant you, but nonetheless worth restating. If you want to know what people really think and feel about an issue, have them vote on it, have a referendum. It’s a principle we might want to hang on to in Canada, if it comes to changing how we vote. But for now the most firm illustration of its wisdom is the just-known results of the Brexit referendum.

The often-ignored, sometimes quite rudely deplored British people have spoken and, to the horror of enlightened opinion, respectable party leaders, the ever-guiding liberal intelligentsia, have decided they don’t want “in” the European Union. The vote comes as a mighty shock to broad-minded continentalists and supranationalists everywhere, but particularly the high elites of British politics. The Guardian’s readership will need special help — grief counsellors are already overwhelmed.

The EU vote is the most dramatic illustration to date of how the “guiding elites” of many Western countries have lost the fealty and trust of their populations. Of the gap between ordinary citizens, facing the challenges of daily life, and the swaddled, well-off and pious tribes of those who govern them, and increasingly govern them with a mixture of moralistic superiority and witless condescension...

More at NATIONAL POST

Thursday, June 23, 2016

US Supreme Court deals immigration blow to Obama - declares President overstepped authority


President Barack Obama has suffered a crushing defeat over immigration at the Supreme Court that will leave the next US president to decide whether to deport or protect millions of unauthorised immigrants.

The US’s top court maintained a freeze on what Mr Obama hoped would be a central part of his legacy, a plan to remove the deportation threat hanging over some 4m people in the US illegally.

The fate of his plan, which affected immigrants whose children are US citizens or lawful permanent residents, will not now be decided until a new president is in the White House.

The result reignites immigration as an issue in the bitter presidential campaign between Donald Trump, who has railed against illegal immigrants, and Hillary Clinton, who called the Supreme Court result “unacceptable”.

Mr Obama decried the result...

See also: Ted Cruz' response to Supreme Court amnesty ruling

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

When a Toronto Pride organizer acts like a self-appointed head of the Gaystapo

Sue-Ann Levy's open letter to Toronto Pride co-Chair Aaron GlynWilliams

How First Nations Became a Prop for White Activists

Jon Kay in The Walrus:
...Modern identity politics came of age in the last decades of the twentieth century, when the Left was losing faith in communism. Over the last two generations, Marxism has reinvented itself through offshoots of environmentalism, anti-racism, anti-colonialism, anti-globalization, and generic anti-capitalism. In furtherance of these causes, our intellectual class has seized, somewhat desperately, on the idea of Indigenous peoples as possessing special, even mystical, powers that permit them to resist the free market and industrialization. They have become a prop for white activists who seek to summon up a world that is more pure, more green, more altruistic than the soulless humdrum of post-industrial global capitalism...



Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Human Rights Hypocrites - New Amnesty International Communications Head expressed support for antisemtic terrorists & the creation of a Sharia-ruled caliphate



Amnesty International, ostensibly a human rights organization which is frequently accused of hypocrisy and anti-western bias, has given ammunition to its critics by appointing a new Communications Director who has expressed support for a senior al Qaida leader and an antisemtic Islamic cleric who advocates suicide bombings of Jews.

Osama Saeed had previously been communications head for Qatari-based news network al Jazeera, which has been described as al Qaida's press agency.  As of last week, Saeed assumed that role for Amnesty International. However, in a blow to Amnesty International's shaky credibility, it has emerged that Saeed has previously written his support for Anwar al Awlaki, a senior al Qaida recruiter who planned a number of terrorist operations, claiming the terror mastermind "preached nothing but peace," and was being "hounded" by the US. According to Saeed, the treatment of al Awaki, who has been linked to a number of terror attacks in which dozens of people were murdered, was "further evidence of what a crock the war on terror is."

Another figure linked to terrorism who has Saeed's support is the extremist Egyptian cleric Yusuf Al Qaradawi, who issued a fatwa supporting suicide bombings in Israel. Qaradawi is a supporter of Adolf Hitler who said that the Nazi leader exacted God's punishment on the Jews. However, Saeed has written glowing praise about that antisemitic Egyptian Imam.

Another aspect of Saeed's controversial past is his support for the creation of an Islamic Caliphate which would be ruled by Sharia law. 

Blimey! A Limey tried to assassinate Donald Trump!

A Briton who tried to grab a police officer's gun at a Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas said he wanted to shoot the US candidate, court papers say.
Michael Steven Sandford, 20, did not enter a plea when he appeared before a judge in Nevada and was remanded in custody until a hearing on 5 July.
He is charged with an act of violence in a restricted area.
He had reportedly tried to seize the gun after saying he wanted Mr Trump's autograph at Saturday's rally.
He said he had been planning to try to shoot Mr Trump for about a year but had decided to act now because he finally felt confident enough to do so, court papers say.
He had originally travelled to the US to see a girlfriend, the Evening Standardreports, citing a friend of his mother.
A federal judge found Mr Sandford, who reportedly appeared in court in shackles, to be a danger and risk of non-appearance, and he was ordered detained pending his preliminary hearing...

Monday, June 20, 2016

The Great Sex Robot Debate at Ideacity

Have you ever imagined a future where you plausibly could have a threesome with Cleopatra and Jayne Mansfield?

I didn't until last week, when Canadian media innovator and impresario Moses Znaimer got me to consider that possibility.

For each of the last 17 years, Znaimer has put on a 3 day conference called Ideacity, in which speakers talk about a wide variety of subjects with a particular focus, as the name suggests, on ideas that have or may come to have big influences on our lives.

It took place this year between June 15 to 17, and had a number of speakers who spoke about conventional subjects in a very interesting way. In that vein, Globe and Mail writer Ian Brown gave a hilarious, yet morbidly pessimistic talk about the perils of aging, and Soulpepper Theatre founder Albert Schultz provided compelling, intriguing insights into Soulpepper's unique and very successful artistic and business models.

But not everything at Ideacity is conventional.

Znaimer vets most of the speakers himself, and reflecting his intellectual, eclectic, and often esoteric interests, the topics range widely and in some cases, a little weirdly. And in other cases, very weirdly.

Science always plays a big role at Ideacity, since nothing changes the way humans live more than scientific discoveries and inventions. Nobel laureate physicist Art McDonald spoke about a neutrino observatory and geneticist Josef Penninger discussed the discovery of what appears to be a cure for osteoporosis and breast cancer. However, there was also some very weird science discussed.

This year's Ideacity included a very serious debate about whether realistic Sex Robots should be banned. Really.

Why you may ask, of all the topics in the world, is use of sex robots something to be worried about? Even after listening to the debate, I have no good answer to that question. But it was a reminder that there there are some people, often sarcastically referred to as "Social Justice Warriors," who seem to live for no other reason than to find new ways to take the fun out of people's lives.

No, I'm not worried about someone taking away my sex robot. Not only do I not own a sex robot, I didn't even know they'd been perfected yet. You stop reading Tech News for a couple of days and the next thing you know, you miss out on all kinds of great stuff.  At least that's how it felt while I was listening to Kathleen Richardson, the head of the Campaign Against Sex Robots, passionately debate David Levy who is an advocate for the use of sex robots.

At first I thought the debate was some sort of joke. Listening to it in Toronto's Koerner Hall auditorium felt like being in a throwaway moment from a semi-serious futuristic movie, where a Sylvester Stallone or Bruce Willis-type hero would be chasing a sci-fi villain past a sex robots rights rally.

However Richardson was sincere if bizarre in her fervent opposition to a future in which people could have carnal relations with convincingly realistic automatons.

The most amazing thing I discovered during the great sex robot debate was that of all the issues affecting humanity, some "social justice" types can actually muster great amounts of time and energy to get worked up about and agitate against a masturbation aid that doesn't even exist yet.

That anyone would be advocating for sex robots seemed to me a rather odd use of time as well, but as an intellectual exercise, I suppose it's at least understandable.

But to organize and campaign on this ridiculous issue outside of a debate forum sounds nuts.

And yes, for reasons that don't make sense to me, the Campaign Against Sex Robots is, in 2016,  a very real thing.

While the subject was fascinating, listening to the debate itself was frustrating.

As events played out, the mild mannered Artificial Intelligence expert was flayed alive by the emotional Ms Richardson's deceptive rhetorical tricks.

Poor Mr. Levy falteringly did his best to make the case for sex robots. He quite reasonably took the position that sex robots would reduce, if not eliminate sex traffic and exploitation, since there would be no need for human prostitutes if realistic, Blade Runner-type sex robots could provide the same service.

He also made the case that for those people who have trouble forming human relationships, sex robots could provide a level of companionship and comfort they would otherwise not be able to find.

Unfortunately for Mr. Levy, his communication style is better suited to discussion than debate, and he lobbed a softball right over the plate for Richardson. He made the stupid mistake, insofar as debating tactics go, to suggest that sex robots made to look like young children could be a substitute for the real thing for pedophiles. Levy was certainly advocating the protection of real human children and against, rather than for pedophilia. But understandably, because of our instinctive revulsion towards them, once someone makes a case in a public debate that seems to enable the desires of pedophiles, they've essentially slit their own wrists.

In response, Ms Richardson pulled out every trick in the book and invoked a plethora of non sequitur emotional arguments to paint Levy's position, and sex robots, at the epitome of evil.

Her first claim was that sex robots made to look like children would encourage actual pedophilia. In that she may be right, although her reasoning was flawed. She claimed that pedophilia is about "politics," not sex. However, for the sick minds who seek out children for sexual gratification dominating a weaker human is part of their degenerate pleasure.

Despite his saying that sex robots could be used by women as well as men, Richardson said realistic sexbots would encourage men to think of women as nothing more than sex objects. It's a ridiculous argument considering that if that were true, then dildos should lead women to consider a man as nothing more than a transport mechanism for a penis. Surprisingly, and perhaps unfortunately,  it turns out very few women think of men in that way. But at the debate, it didn't occur to Mr. Levy to point any of this out.

Then Richardson went off on a wild, preposterous tangent, saying that black slave robots could be created, thus facilitating racism.

By the time she was done, she had the hapless Levy defending himself from charges of advocating for the facilitation of pedophilia, the subjugation of women, and racism.

All of which was nonsense, of course.

To suggest that sex robots would advance those evils is no more logical than to suggest we should ban toy puppies because it might encourage depraved sadists who like torturing animals.

Still, Richardson had equated being pro sex robot to being pro slavery, misogyny, racism, and pedophilia. It was like the joke that in political criticism, everyone you don't like is Hitler, which was pretty much the only disparaging analogy she left out. But why not go full Adolf?  By bringing in something as extreme as Hitler,  it shows how wrong Richardson is in her arguments.

What if an antisemite wants to make robot Jews and exterminate them? Wouldn't that be a terrible thing?  Well, yes it would.  But speaking with the advantage of hindsight, if the technology had existed, would it not have been immeasurably better if Hitler had made robot Jews and burned them in the ovens of Auschwitz instead of actual humans?! And wouldn't it have been better if robots had been used in the US south to do menial labor instead of plundering Africa for human beings who were enslaved, murdered, and abused for generations?

By Ms Richardson's reasoning, it could just as easily be argued that by wanting to ban sex robots, she's for genocide, the exploitation of women, slavery, and the sexual abuse of the real children that pedophiles will use instead of robots. Beyond that, by implying that it's only straight men who would use them, it could also be argued that her anti sex robot stance is homophobic and sexist. All of which would be as inaccurate as Ms Richardson's charges against Mr. Levy.

Ms Richardson did have a number of fans in the Ideacity audience. Her talking points got enthusiastic applause on quite a few occasions. But in scanning the crowd, I noticed that the people cheering for Richardson were all women of an identical age group and physical type.

Which is understandable. In a world where sexbots are just science fiction, heterosexual, middle aged, unsexy women can rely on some attention from middle aged men without better alternatives available to them. But if there were sex robots, they would be in about as much demand as a VCR in a world with blu-ray, PVRs, and video streaming. Another consideration that was absent from the debate is that one of the disparities of the male/female dynamic is that women seem to value and require emotion more than men.

Regardless of the unbalanced way the great sex robot debate at Ideacity played out,  it did stimulate some fascinating considerations that weren't discussed.  If the technology advances to the point of them being possible, then realistic cybernetic sex robots will get made, for a simple, obvious reason. They will generate huge revenues.

Demand drives commerce, and there are few things more always in demand than sex.

About 20 percent of revenue from the Internet is porn related, and it's because of online pornography that innovations like secure online purchases and video streams were developed.

The commercial potential of sexbots wasn't discussed at the debate, but it's one of the most fascinating considerations about the subject.

One thing that's a certainty is that if sex robots become reality, then celebrities will be licensing their likenesses for them. It's hard to imagine that if the technology for one existed, there wouldn't be Pam Anderson and Kim Kardashian sexbots, advertised as being as good as the real thing. Possibly better, because with a cybernetic Kardashian, it would only talk if you want it to.

But this concept opens the door to some really intriguing possibilities. There could be sexbots of anyone from history!

I could have a foursome with Raquel Welch circa 1968, a 1930 Greta Garbo, and Pam Grier as she looked in 1973. And what woman wouldn't want Cary Grant and Sean Connery simultaneously at her command. Gay men could have threesomes with James Dean and Monty Cliff.  And what lesbian would pass the chance to find herself scissoring with Katherine Hepburn while Audrey Hepburn sits on her face?  The options are endless.

There is a downside to sex robots in the potential damage it could do to human productivity and creativity.  When people can have their fantasies fulfilled on demand, they're going to spend a lot more time fulfilling those fantasies instead of doing other things.

After all, if the technology currently existed where I had the choice between writing and getting a massage from robot Marilyn Monroe while being fellated by robot Halle Berry, you wouldn't be reading any of this now.


Futurama - Don't date robots from John Pope on Vimeo.




Sunday, June 19, 2016

Robert Lantos: The true face of BDS


...Israel has never been defeated on the battlefield, and she must never be. But our enemies have devised other weapons, more sophisticated than rockets, with which to weaken her through isolation and vilification via the spreading of a false narrative that has become gospel in fashionable, politically correct circles.

A few weeks ago, I visited Haifa University. I met students and faculty from the Ambassadors Online program, who are engaged in designing creative and ingenious ways to combat BDS propaganda. Spending a few hours on this campus in one fell swoop lays waste the lie of Israel apartheid. Arab and Druze students make up about 40 per cent of the student body. In classrooms, in the cafeteria, on the grass, they mingle shoulder to shoulder with their Jewish counterparts.

This campus reflects the everyday reality of Israeli society, which is about as apartheid as downtown Toronto...

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Fred Litwin: Gay establishment uses tragedy to push their own agenda

LGBT communities around the world are in grief this week at the brutal attack in Orlando which left 49 dead and over 50 wounded. Vigils were held around the world to commemorate the lives of people who just wanted to dance and party. But, as a long-time gay rights activist, and someone who marched in Toronto’s gay pride parade back in 1983, I just couldn’t attend the ceremony in Ottawa.

It’s not that I didn’t oppose the homophobia that drove Mateen to walk into a gay nightclub and start shooting, and it’s not that I didn’t want to show solidarity with my brothers and sisters. It’s just that I knew that the gay establishment would use this horrible tragedy to push its own narrative on the ‘never-ending’ Canadian scourge of homophobia, transphobia and sexism.

I wasn’t disappointed. The invite to the Ottawa vigil said that the community “also denounces any form of islamophobic, xenophobic, or racist actions. In times of struggle, it is essential to stay united. We must ensure that spaces like these stay safe to the Muslim community.”

In Toronto, Kathleen Wynne said, “let’s not pretend that we have no homophobia, let’s not pretend that we have no racism, and let’s not pretend that we have no sexism.”

Kristyn Wong-Tam, Toronto city councillor, called Mateen’s act “senseless” and that “our social miracle in Ontario cannot be taken for granted.” She then introduced her queer Muslim fiancĂ©e, and told the crowd that “when people hate Muslims, they hate us.”

Wong-Tam concluded that “when we see something, we will speak up.”

Except that she doesn’t and she won’t. And, that’s the problem...

See also:  Orlando, the gay 9/11, changes everything

Friday, June 17, 2016

Our Baseball Team forfeited to JV again ‘cuz Coach O wouldn’t tell the Bus Driver who we’re playing against

 So we forfeited the baseball game again today to another school that Coach O called a “Junior Varsity Team”. I was really excited to make Varsity as a sophomore, but losing 3 times in a row sucks. Coach O says it’s because “We’ve lost our focus”. But maybe it’s because he wouldn’t tell us who we were playing…

Tarek Fatah: Toronto campaign against Islamophobia an insult


...In a press release on Tuesday, OCASI revealed, “The City of Toronto and OCASI are launching a Toronto public education campaign to address xenophobia, Islamophobia, and anti-immigrant sentiments.”
It quoted Councillor Joe Cressy of Trinity-Spadina saying “OCASI has an extensive history of working with refugees and understand the barriers they face to integration. We appreciate their insights.”
One of the first outcomes of OCASI’s “insights” was a poster that shows a white man confronting a black Muslim woman in hijab, telling her: “Go back to where you come from,” to which the black hijabi woman replies, “Where, North York?”
In one sweep the City of Toronto depicted every white man as a racist bigot and perpetuated the victimhood of Muslims, a goal of all Islamists worldwide who hate the West.
The question to Cressy is this: If you had to show a white male, then why didn’t you put your own face on the poster? Why leave it to an actor?...

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Orlando Islamic Terrorist's Spiritual Instructor said SpongeBob was put into society to promote homosexuality



Maybe he's right. I'm pro-gay and I love SpongeBob.

Or maybe he's a conspiratorial, homophobic idiot preaching the sort of stuff that is commonplace within Islam, and being gay is cool and SpongeBob is great fun. Or is that being gay is great fun and SpongeBob is cool?

From my extensive SpongeBob viewing, I don't recall sex of any sort in that cartoon series.

But at this point, I have a confession to make: I'm not really sure of any aspect of the sex lives of sponges.
...According to Fox News, a law enforcement source said: 'It is no coincidence that this happened in Orlando. Mateen was enrolled in (Robertson's online) Fundamental Islamic Knowledge Seminary.'

Police believe that Robertson's Timbuktu Seminary is used to dispense his radical teachings, sources said.

Robertson, who was a former US Marine and undercover FBI agent before turning into a radical Imam, has previously been allowed into Britain, and preached at the Green Lane mosque in Small Heath, Birmingham, in 2010 - despite his violent criminal background, according to The Sun.

Many British ISIS fighters have described him as an inspiration, while videos of his lectures posted online show him rail against homosexuals and describe cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants, as gay and a means to promote homosexuality to children...


More HERE

The TSA versus al Qaida


Key & Peele - Al Qaeda Meeting by my-boxy

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Rex Murphy: The sterile, vapid, chauvinistic alley of identity politics

...“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” Sotomayor said. Call it the Sotomayor principle: you’re better because you’re different. Elsewhere in that same address, she nailed the point even more strongly: “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences … our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
This Sotomayor principle holds that ethnic and sexual considerations plainly offer an advantage, a superiority. The wise Latina woman, because she is a woman and Latina, would by the mysteries of identity, be a better judge, reach a “better conclusion,” than a “white male.” Something attaches inescapably to her biology and race, her personal sex and ethnicity, that lifts Sotomayor above, proves her as more competent or wise, than (the natural counterpoint and foil of all identity politics arguments) “a white male.”
If sex and race, in one instance, improve the judging mind that possesses the “right” combination, it is surely the case that in other circumstances, they will restrict and degrade it. To argue otherwise would be sexist and racist. Surely, the engine of “difference” doesn’t drive in one direction only, doesn’t belong to just one sex, or select ethnicities? Are we not then free, as Sotomayor was, to imagine a circumstance in which a “wise Caucasian male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life. ” And if we are, her observations are null, since there is nothing “special” as such to any one race or sex.
The Sotomayor principle, an identity politics principle, is just a rephrasing of the blind theory that biology is fate, and geography, birthplace, is its handmaiden. It is a regressive principle, one that places unpassable frontiers on human understanding and empathy.
This is the kind of sterile, vapid, chauvinistic alley identity politics draws you into. If we start claiming special and exclusive intellectual and moral capacities because of one’s race or sex, offering those capacities as intrinsic to race and sex, then have we not merely put a happy face on the repulsive and core ideas of racism and sexism?...

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Even in the wake of the Orlando massacre, cognitive dissonance prevents the left from acknowledging Islamic homophobia

If someone does something and explicitly tells you why they did it, even if that something is unspeakably evil, when the reasons they give are verifiable and credible, then there's every reason to believe they are telling the truth.

When Hitler directed the murder of 6 million Jews, his motives were never in doubt. Fifteen years before the Holocaust began, Hitler wrote a book, most of which was devoted to expressing his hatred of Jews and his desire to eliminate them. When Nazis were on trial for their lives in the wake of World War 2, many of whom were convicted and executed for their roles in carrying out Hitler's policies of extermination, none of them made the claim, "it didn't happen." Their defense was always, "we were only obeying orders." It's only in the aftermath of those crimes that imbeciles and neo-Nazis, desperately trying to rehabilitate Hitler and Nazism, have denied the reality and the magnitude of the Nazi genocide.

Like Nazi-apologia, there is something very similar and strange happening in the wake of the monstrous mass murder that occurred early Sunday morning at an Orlando gay nightclub, where self-professed ISIS follower Omar Mateen slaughtered 49 club-goers with a semi-automatic rifle.

This is part of a familiar pattern when an act of vicious terrorism is committed by an Islamic terrorist who specifically states that he was inspired by his religious beliefs. Within instants, the left in media and academia commences twisting itself into pretzels to find ways of denying that Islam was a factor in a horrific crime motivated by Islamic teaching. The cognitive dissonance is so striking that they claim to know the killer's motives better than the killer himself.

If instead of being a Muslim, imagine what the media response would be had Mateen been a member of the demented, inbred, "God hates fags" Westboro Baptist church.  Is there any doubt the media would have instantly indicted not just that minuscule, inbred cult with only 40 members, but all of "right-wing evangelical Christianity" for having provoked a mass murder?

Obviously most Muslims in the west are not violent terrorists. Most American and Canadian Muslims do not attend mosque with any regularity. But Omar Mateen was a regular mosque-goer, and there is a critical difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism in its consideration of homosexuality.

All three Abrahamic religions originally considered homosexuality to be "sinful."  But in practice, many Christian and Jewish denominations embrace gay congregants and have renounced condemnations of homosexuality. Except for a tiny minority, even conservative Christian and Jewish denominations that denounce homosexuality do not advocate harming, killing or persecuting gay people.

Within Islam, the case is completely different. The tolerant branches of Islam, the Ismailis, Druze, Sufis, Ahmadiyya, and Baha'i, are comparatively small sects which combined make up less than 5% of the world's Muslim population. Indeed, the Sufi, Ahmadiyya, and Baha'i communities are regularly persecuted by mainstream Sunni and Shia in Islamic countries, including Iran and Pakistan, where there is no separation between Mosque and State.

Men executed in Iran for being gay
It is not only within radical, or extremist Islam, but in mainstream Islam, the Shia and Sunni sects that make up 95% of the world's Muslims, where homosexuality is condemned in the harshest terms. In mosques all over the world, including in North America and Europe, Imams preach that the appropriate punishment for homosexuality is death, and they mean that literally.

In many Muslim-majority countries, being gay means being guilty of a capital offense. In countries ruled under Islamic Sharia, such as  Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and others, they routinely execute people for being gay.

But in the worldview of the left, mired in regressive, Marxist "Critical Studies" thinking, people are categorized as either oppressor or oppressed, with a particular hierarchy of victimology. In the leftist mind, all Muslims are automatically victims or western imperialism and racism, regardless of where they live, what they look like, or their economic status. This despite the fact that Muslim countries are the most repressive on earth, in which religious and ethnic minorities, gays and women hold fewer rights than in any western country.

But to admit that would mean admitting that their world view is mistaken. It means that people other than only Caucasians are capable of hatred, oppression and persecution. And the people dogmatically attached to their leftist worldview are as committed to it as ISIS recruits are to Islam. So rather than face reality, cognitive dissonance sets in, and they deny it.

In so doing, leftist feminists sell out women's rights, leftist "Queer" activists sell out gay rights, and leftist academics invent false facts and try to draw a moral equivalence between religions which express discomfort about homosexuality and those that kill people for being gay.  Or even more bizarrely, their cognitive dissonance is so pronounced that they will blame Christianity for an atrocity committed by a Muslim in the name of Islam.

All so leftists can congratulate themselves about how supposedly tolerant and progressive they are, and cling on to their twisted, cognitively-impaired worldview.

Omar Mateen had been investigated by the FBI following complaints by his co-workers about comments he made that indicated he was supportive of terrorists. However that investigation was called off because the FBI was afraid of appearing Islamophobic by pursuing it.

When we see the result of that breakdown, it's clear the left's cognitive dissonance about Islam and its homophobia is both contagious and fatal.



Monday, June 13, 2016

Sign the petition to keep Iran on Canada's terror list

Iran is ruled by vicious, terror-supporting maniacs who have decreed that gay people can be killed and that women can be beatn and imprisoned for dressing "immodestly."

Justin Trudeau and his Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane "I don't understand the question" Dion want to take Iran off the terror list.

Sign the parliamentary petition sponsored by Tony Clement, MP to maintain Iran on the list of terror-supporting countries at THIS LINK.


Milo on the left's privileging of Islam over gay rights

...Obama’s response to the tragedy today was similarly limp-wristed. He made no mention of Islam or Muslims, instead condemning “hate and terror” and taking a brazen swipe at gun rights activists by noting “how easy it is to let people get their hands on a weapon.”
He didn’t even address the uniquely homophobic character of the attack. What a good liberal!
There’s no more room for equivocating. The Orlando shooting isn’t just the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. shores since 9/11. It is also, by far, the worst act of violent homophobia in the nation’s history and the deadliest mass shooting in America ever.
According to the murderer’s father, his son became angry after he saw two men kissing in the street. “This had nothing to do with religion,” said the father, Seddique Mateen. “He saw two men kissing each other in front of his wife and kid and he got very angry” — as if that was some kind of excuse.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

'Gays Must Die' said Imam At Orlando Mosque shortly before gay disco massacre



A horrendous act of terror occurred last night in Orlando, where an Islamic terrorist murdered 50 people at a gay nightclub.

The terrorist, Omar Mateen, reportedly pledged allegiance to ISIS.

In what is probably not coincidental, only a couple of months ago, an Imam called for the death of gays at an Orlando mosque. Preaching hatred towards gays and calling for their killing is a regular aspect of preaching in many mosques. Some of the most prominent Islamic scholars, even those living in civilized western countries including Canada, call for the murder of homosexuals.


Friday, June 10, 2016

EU Referendum: Massive swing to Brexit – with just 13 days to go

The campaign to take Britain out of the EU has opened up a remarkable 10-point lead over the Remain camp, according to an exclusive poll for The Independent.
The survey of 2,000 people by ORB found that 55 per cent believe the UK should leave the EU (up four points since our last poll in April), while 45 per cent want it to remain (down four points). These figures are weighted to take account of people’s likelihood to vote. It is by far the biggest lead the Leave camp has enjoyed since ORB began polling the EU issue for The Independent a year ago, when it was Remain who enjoyed a 10-point lead. Now the tables have turned...

A niche market just opened up in the Canadian tourist industry


Sex acts with animals are legal in Canada, so long as there is no penetration involved, according to a surprise ruling issued by the Supreme Court.

The determination stemmed from a case involving a British Columbia man convicted of 13 counts sexually assaulting his stepdaughters - including one count of bestiality. But the man, identified only as "DLW", was acquitted of the bestiality count with the new ruling.

DLW's attorneys argued that bestiality linked to "buggery" - or sodomy - with animals beginning with an 1892 criminal code. Bestiality was first used in a 1955 code, but still was not defined to encompass every sex act with animals. 

"Although bestiality was often subsumed in terms such as sodomy or buggery, penetration was the essence - 'the defining act' - of the offence," the court said.

Thus, the court ruled by a 7–1 majority that bestiality required penetration...

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Donald Trump’s Phony War on the Press



From Politico:
Before Donald Trump gets a chance to call another press conference like last week’s—in which he excoriated reporters as “sleazy,” “extremely dishonest,” “unfair,” “not good people” and so on—can we get something straight? Far from wanting to declare a war on the press, as the Washington Post’s Paul WaldmanDan RatherNat Hentoff and others would have it, can we all agree on what’s really going on—that Trump actually loves the press?

Granted, Trump has been expressing his love in a gruff way since the campaign began. “You know, you’re a nasty guy. You’re a really nasty guy,” Trump said to a Washington Post reporter last month who grilled him about his donations to veterans’ groups. He threatened Post owner Jeff Bezos, who runs Amazon, with an antitrust case after he wins the presidency. He’s vowed to “open up” the libel laws to make it easier to sue publications like the Post and the New York Times when they “write purposely negative and horrible and false articles.” Reporters are “slime,” he’s said. “Dishonest slime.” His staff has denied POLITICO reporter Ben Schreckinger (and others) accreditation, effectively banning them from his rallies. Then there’s all that Megyn Kelly history. Trump’s favorite press target today is NBC News’ Katy Tur for having the temerity to criticize his campaign’s structure.

But the reporters who cover Trump and his daily hyperbole should know better than to read so much into these insults and vendettas. When Trump praises things—usually things associated with himself—he overdoes it, using words like the “best,” the “greatest,” the “biggest,” “tremendous” and “spectacular” where a less excitable person might use “good” or “fine.” When he criticizes things (or people) he displays no patience for making the subtle point, reflexively describing them as “disgusting,” the “worst,” “weak,” “clueless,” “scum,” “crooked,” “ridiculous,” “unfair,” “bad,” “false” or “lies” as a compilation of Twitters insults he has issued shows. When expressing himself, Trump knows only paradise and disaster, giants and dwarves. It’s a worldview that rarely reaches beyond the binary. When Trump calls a reporter a sleaze or claims he’s going change the libel laws—something that is beyond a president’s powers—we should put no more stock in those words than we do when he promises his forthcoming U.S.-Mexico wall will be “beautiful.”

Some journalists—dare I say it?—are overreacting to Trump’s bile and bluster. It’s not that his outbursts are merely for show. He obviously gets steamed at direct, prodding questions that he can’t evade. But his eagerness to insult the press—it was by his choice that the press-damning press conference went on for 40-minutes—perversely signals his passion for the labors of the fourth estate. The Trump vs. the press story is like a rom-com sit-com, only it airs on the news channels!

Far from seeking war with reporters, Trump has generally been very cozy with them...

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Dilbert creator Scott Adams (ironically) endorses Hillary Clinton for his personal safety

I've been reading some of the stuff on Scott Adams'  (the guy who created the  "Dilbert" comic) blog about his opinion of Trump's methods and it's really quite interesting. Adams has been pissing off a lot of lefties and Democrats for predicting Trump will win in a landslide and praising his technique of persuasion.

This one called "Clown Genius" is quite good, and keep in mind Adams wrote it back in August 2015, almost a year ago, and it was very prescient.  

If Adams is right, and he's persuaded me that he's at least got some insight into things, then Trump's attacking the media like no other national politician has before falls into the plan. The media is obviously going to be highly critical of Trump, much more than Clinton, both for the obvious reason that there is plenty of crazy talk that comes out of Trump's mouth, but also because of the inherent leftist bias in most mainstream media. So Trump repeating that the media are sleazy, that they are liars, that they can't be trusted, and pointing out some of the errors and biases of specific reporters is not just lashing out, but part of a thought-out plan to neutralize media criticism by instilling distrust of them. To an extent, it's working, because a number of the subjects of those attacks by Trump have had to go on the defensive to try to establish their criticism isn't based on bias but them "just doing their job."
...If Clinton successfully pairs Trump with Hitler in your mind – as she is doing – and loses anyway, about a quarter of the country will think it is morally justified to assassinate their own leader. I too would feel that way if an actual Hitler came to power in this country. I would join the resistance and try to take out the Hitler-like leader. You should do the same. No one wants an actual President Hitler.
So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.
As I have often said, I have no psychic powers and I don’t know which candidate would be the best president. But I do know which outcome is most likely to get me killed by my fellow citizens. So for safety reason, I’m on team Clinton...