Quote of the Day:
Obama in Burma- “As President, I cannot just impose my will on Congress — the Congress of the United States — even though sometimes I wish I could,” he stated. “The legislative branch has its own powers and its own prerogatives, and so they check my power and balance my power.”
Yes, Herr Obama, I’m sure you do. 🙂
“We have to double down in 2014. We’ve got to make sure we recruit more women for office, because It’s not just a slogan that when women run, women win. They do, and when women run, Democrats win,” Wasserman-Schultz said.
Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said the Republican Party “got whiter and more male” while the Democratic caucus is “majority minority and female.” (CNS)
So do you think the Democrats are going to seed any “minority” ground to Republicans who are fearful they are too white to win?
F*UCK NO! And anyone who thinks so is an idiot. They have their strategy and it works for them so they are going to ramp up the fear, hatred, division, and envy even more! More of a “good thing” in their eyes.
So you thought the hatred, fear and envy was bad in 2012, just wait….
Speaking of hate and fear, How about the coverage of Israel under attack by Hamas?
Heard anything about Israeli’s being killed by hundreds of rockets a day? Or Hamas using women and children as human shields?
UPI: Israeli air raids have pounded Gaza for a sixth successive day, raising to 96 the number of Palestinians killed.
Nothing about the 200+ rockets a day launched AT Israel BY Hamas.
Not relevant to the Ministry of Truth.
When Seal Team Six killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, no one described it as an “assassination.” Why not? Because Osama wasn’t a civilian political leader; he was a terrorist combatant who had declared war on America, and tried to continue his attacks in any way possible.
Why, then, have the New York Times and other media outlets referred to Israel’s killing of Ahmed Jabaari in Gaza as “an assassination?” He was the military commander of a terrorist organization, Hamas, which remains at war with Israel, and takes pride in aiming deadly rockets at Israeli civilian targets every day. There’s a big difference between assassination–the targeting of civilian leaders for political purposes–and striking armed combatants in self defense in the midst of an ongoing war. (Michael Medved)
Because that doesn’t fit the Meme.
A new CNN poll shows only 40 percent of Democrats support Israel’s response to Hamas launching repeatedly rockets into their country.
“Although most Americans think the Israeli actions are justified, there are key segments of the public who don’t necessarily feel that way,” said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Only four in ten Democrats think the Israeli actions in Gaza are justified, compared to 74% of Republicans and 59% of independents. Support for Israel’s military action is 13 points higher among men than among women, and 15 points higher among older Americans than among younger Americans.”
Is anybody really surprised? After all, this is the party that booed Israel and God at this year’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. (Katie Pavlich)
My question is, Why are so many Jews hardcore Democrats?
It makes no sense logically. But then again, Democrats almost never make any sense logically. Ideologically, emotionally, yes. Logically, no.
But it is very curious.
In the film “Groundhog Day,” Bill Murray wakes up each morning and relives the previous day.
A similar scenario is playing out in the Middle East between Israel and her enemies. The deadly “movie” always goes like this: Israel is shelled or attacked by terrorists groups, often called “militants” by the media, each one with the same goal: Israel’s elimination. After demonstrating considerable restraint of the kind that would never be tolerated by any other nation, Israel fires back.
Suddenly, the world awakens from its indifference. World leaders, who said little when Israeli civilians were wounded and killed, now urge “restraint” by “both sides,” as if a moral equivalency exists between victim and predator.
In the run-up to confrontation, it has been reported that Hamas placed weaponry among civilians, hoping that when Israeli airstrikes started they could show photos of dead children, bringing condemnation on Israel. What’s more, according to Breitbart.com, “Hamas has a well-established pattern of faking civilian deaths in Gaza, even as it seeks civilian deaths in Israel.” American and foreign TV networks — particularly CNN and BBC — are then brought in to channel the Palestinian line, portraying Israel as the aggressor. (Cal Thomas)
The way in which the New York Times reports good vs. evil is one of the most important stories of our time.
Take the war between Israel and Hamas that is taking place right now.
This war is as morally clear as wars get. Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to annihilating the Jewish state. It runs a theocratic totalitarian state in Gaza, with no individual liberty and no freedom of speech or press. In a nutshell, Hamas is a violent, fascist organization.
Israel, meanwhile, is one the world’s most humane states, not to mention a democracy that is so tolerant that Arab members of its parliament are free to express admiration for Hamas.
Over the past decade, Hamas had launched thousands of rockets into Israel with one aim: to kill and maim as many Israeli citizens as possible — Israelis at work, at play, asleep in their homes, in their cars. Finally, Israel responded by killing Ahmed al-Jabari, the chief organizer of Hamas violence, the Hamas “military commander” as he was known among Palestinians.
The next day, three more Israelis were killed by rockets.
Then Hamas targeted Tel Aviv, Israel’s most densely populated region, and Israel shelled Hamas rocket launching sites.
In other words, an evil entity made war on a peaceful, decent entity, and the latter responded.
How has the New York Times reported this?
On Friday, on its front page, the Times featured two three-column wide photos. The top one was of Gaza Muslim mourners alongside the dead body of al-Jabari. The photo below was of Israeli Jews mourning alongside the dead body of Mira Scharf, a 27-year-old mother of three.
What possible reason could there be for the New York Times to give identical space to these two pictures? One of the dead, after all, was a murderer, and the other was one of his victims.
The most plausible reason is that the Times wanted to depict through pictures a sort of moral equivalence: Look, sophisticated Times readers, virtually identical scenes of death and mourning on both sides of the conflict. How tragic.
If one had no idea what had triggered this war, one would read and see the Times coverage and conclude that two sides killing each other were both equally at fault.
This is the mainstream (i.e., liberal) media’s approach. The Los Angeles Times headline on the same day was: “Israel and Gaza veering down familiar, bitter path,”
Same presentation: two scorpions fighting in a bottle.
I would add the tale of the Frog and the Scorpion:
The Scorpion and the Frog is a fable about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung during the trip, but the scorpion argues that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown. The frog agrees and begins carrying the scorpion, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When asked why, the scorpion points out that this is its nature.
(Sounds like the Republicans (Frog) and Democrats (Scorpion) doesn’t it?)
Hamas and Israel. And which is which depends on your Meme. 🙂
Examples are endless. Here is one more:
In 2002, there was widespread Nigerian Muslim opposition to the Miss World pageant scheduled to take place that year in Nigeria. Defending the pageant, a Nigerian female reporter wrote a column in which she said that not only were the contestants not “whores,” as alleged by the Muslim protestors, but they were such fine women that “Muhammad would probably have taken one of the contestants for a wife.”
That one sentence led to Muslim rioting, the beating and killing of Christians, the burning of churches and the razing of her newspaper’s offices.
How did the New York Times report the events?
“Fiery Zealotry Leaves Nigeria in Ashes Again.”
No group is identified as responsible. “Fiery zealotry,” not Muslim violence, was responsible.
The article then begins: “The beauty queens are gone now, chased from Nigeria by the chaos in Kaduna.”
Again, Muslim rioters weren’t responsible for chasing the beauty queens out of Nigeria; it was “chaos.”
The article concludes that what happened in Kaduna was another example of Africa’s “difficulty in reconciling people who worship separately.” In other words, Christians and Muslims were equally guilty.
As the flagship news source of the left, the New York Times reveals the great moral failing inherent to leftism — its combination of moral relativism and the division of the world between strong and weak, Western and non-Western, and rich and poor, rather than between good and evil. (Dennis Prager)
Bernard Lewis, the renowned scholar and expert on the history of Islam, was recently aboard a Post-Election Cruise sponsored by National Review magazine, as was I.
Lewis noted that the Cold War featured “mutual assured destruction” (MAD), which served as a deterrent for both the United States and the Soviet Union from using their nuclear weapons against each other. Lewis said for Islamic nations like Iran (which sponsors Hamas in Gaza), “MAD is not a deterrent, but an inducement.” That’s because, he said, the Iranian regime believes in the apocalyptic end of days in which the 12th Imam — the Islamic “messiah” — will emerge in the midst of a nuclear war with Israel and “save” humanity with Islam the surviving religion. (Cal Thomas)
In God They Trust. In The Ministry we should not.