A perfect example of “hypocrisy” – Islam style

The Prime Minister of “moderate” Islamic Turkey said this recently of Islam:

“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers...this holy army guards my religion."

In essence, Minarets are the stamp of Islamic domination in an area, a symbol of local conquest in keeping with their supremacist ideology.

Meanwhile, Switzerland has legitimate concern with the proliferation of Islamic Minarets in their nation, with their Jihadi connotation. So much so that a referendum to ban construction of new Minarets throughout the country passed by a wide margin.

The predictable response from scholars in Saudi Arabia, a nation that absolutely forbids the construction of any Church or Synagogue, lambasted the referendum:

“This is another evidence of the West’s antagonism towards Islam. This is a clear evidence of the racial and religious segregation still prevails in the West, especially in a country, which boasts of an exemplary model of democratic ideals."

The audacity of fascist Muslims throwing out the phrase “democratic ideals.” This scenario is as worthy of the word “hypocrisy” as any I have observed. Of course, Muslims don’t see this as hypocrisy because they claim to possess the “one true religion” and it is their way or the highway to dhimmitude for those who disagree.

LiveJournal Tags: Minarets in Switzerland,Minarets,hypocrisy of Islam

Why “Free Trade” is Destroying America

Free trade seems to have almost universal favor among both liberals and conservatives. Why, I wonder. Most likely because we all relish cheap goodies, cheap electronics, appliances, cars, tires, pet food, just about everything in Wal-Mart. China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, the Philippines, Haiti, India – they all make things cheaper “over there” than we do over here.

Do you ever stop to consider why they make things cheaper? Salaries are a lot lower there, true. Does it matter to anyone WHY they are lower? Equal protection laws, minimum wage laws don’t exist in these other places. They do here. Nor do the plethora of environmental regulations exist “over there.” They don’t give a hang about the snail darter or cross-eyed Smelt. They don’t care a lot about child labor laws. “Over there” they don’t have a President who vows to kill their coal industries, the cheapest source of energy.

We have an abundance of laws protecting our air and water quality which dramatically increases our manufacturing costs. And we are obsessing over "global warming" by proposing to reduce our "carbon footprint" at a cost of hundreds of billions - an action that will have the same impact on reducing the earth's temperature as throwing an ice cube at the sun.

Sure, let's pour on more costly environmental and energy conservation regulations on what little industry we have left.

Is there a smell of hypocrisy in this? Let’s send most of our manufacturing jobs overseas so we can get things cheaper here while we continue to increase our manufacturing costs to improve our environment while other countries increase their unfair advantage over our workers by making things cheaper because they don’t have the regulations we have. Whew!

What is the end game of free trade? We promote consumption instead of production. We import everything. We create a pristine, energy efficient environment, and make nothing? We create pure air and foster abundant diverse rare species for all of us to enjoy while we all hike, golf and wait in unemployment lines? What do you think this will do to our balance of trade over the next several years? The picture isn’t pretty. It is as if we are all drunk on consumption and can’t see reality.

I’m not understanding this. For insights from one who knows a lot more about this topic than I, take a look at this essay from Pat Buchanan titled Globalism vs. Americanism.

Here is a great quote from his article, and the definition of the hypocrisy in all this:

Where they have tilted the playing field against us, let us tilt it back again. Transnational companies are as amoral as sharks.

Hypocrisy of House Censure Rules

What is the difference between clapping, hissing, cheering, booing, yelling “right on, man” or yelling “liar.” All are disruptive. How many agonizingly long minutes have political speeches been extended because of painfully disruptive applause? Exclaiming “liar” took only about a second. Booing is disrespectful but happens all the time.

The Free Republic.com reports that under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:

• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:

• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”

Fortunately we still have free speech out in the real world. Too bad we don’t have free speech in Congress. Fortunately we can still call a spade a spade, we can still say Muslims are best known today for their terrorism, intolerance and their oppression of women without being censured. We can still speak the truth. We can still call someone a liar if they really are. Too bad Congress can’t do the same.

As an added bonus to this blog entry, I present to you a timely piece from a very wise commentator, Charles Krauthamer he titles: Does He Lie? Enjoy!

Response from GEICO – My response back.

Last night I emailed GEICO and asked if it was true that they cut their ads from the Glenn Beck TV show, and, if so, why.

Here is GEICO’s reply:

Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 7:34 PM

Thank you, first of all for your business and also for your interest in this matter. This week we took action to move our marketing messages from the Glenn Beck show and you are wondering why.
Well you deserve an answer.

If the inflammatory nature of the comments on a program overshadows our message and causes GEICO to be drawn into a national debate, we are likely to reconsider where we place our marketing messages, which is what we did.

GEICO delivers very important messages through its major marketing campaigns: we?re saving customers? dollars, we?re easy to do business with, and we?re looking out for our policyholders. That?s what we hope the public hears and sees and focuses on.
As a company, we do not take positions on controversial issues.
As an advertiser, while a national debate on issues can be healthy and appropriate, we don?t see ourselves in the role of taking part in those debates.

Our business is auto insurance. We want to bring people value and we attempt to reach large audiences with that message. 
It is of little benefit to us if a program gets so much attention that our message is drowned out.

And here is my reply back to GEICO this evening:

Thank you for your reply and explanation of your actions with regard to removing GEICO advertising from the Glenn Beck TV show.

Every company certainly has the right to appropriate any advertising dollar to any media they believe benefits them best.

But such actions are also indicative of the values of such company.  GEICOs actions indicate to me that your firm has little regard for public debate, alternative viewpoints and anything but the socialist agenda that is being promoted by the main stream media and most of our out of touch federal government.  You are on the side of the sinking polls of our president and his administration.  I believe too much in the greatness of this nation and the values she represents, and promoted by Glenn Beck, to stand idly by and and not react and comment on your actions.

One persons' "inflammatory" is another's "sound contrary opinion."  As one of your customers, I was not distracted in the least by Beck's commentary and in fact, respected GEICO as a sponsor.  Your withdrawal from that show indicates your disdain for debate, and in fact, your support of values that are contrary to the best interests of this nation.  I suspect and am hoping that many thousands of your customers believe the same and will act accordingly.

Finally, I find it rather disingenuous and hypocritical that GEICO continues its advertising on the leftist Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman and Ed Schultz shows.

This clearly shows GEICOs political bias and BS excuses.

Sincerely,

If for NO OTHER reason to oppose the bill...

On ABC, Obama was asked by Charlie Gibson:

"Mr. President, will you and your family give up your current health care program and join the new "Universal health Care Program" that the rest of us will be on?"

There was stoney silence, with this expression from this "universal health care proponent"...


A number of senators were asked the same question. Their response: "We'll think about it."

The test that we should hold Congress to on any bill they consider passing: Will you agree to forfeit your perk and be covered by what you approve for the rest of us?

If they waffle or say no, KILL IT. If for no other reason to kill the bill, it is because of the special privledge and hypocracy it perpetuates...reducing the health benefits 70% of us enjoy while maintaining the gold plated benefits of the privledged few.

Bush is consistent on border insecurity.

This is the situation. A bunch of Kurdish folk in the northern portions of Iraq have it in their heads that the southern part of Turkey belongs to them. So they begin infiltrating southern Turkey and act somewhat like the Sunni and Shia do...they blow up things and people inside Turkey (after all, they are all Muslim).

Silly Turkey. They get the idea in their heads that they need to put a stop to the terrorist violence from the Kurds. The only reasonable way they see of defending their southern border is to eliminate the offending Kurds at their source: inside Iraq. So Turkey announces their plan to defend their border.

True to form, "defend no border Bush" comes trotting out and cries out "No, wait! Don't defend your border! Give us some time. We'll work things out!" Bush has taken seven years in this country to work out our border problems - I hope Turkey realizes where that has gotten us. Can you imagine 12 million Kurds in southern Turkey?

What hypocisy. What a double standard. We can invade Iraq from upteen thousand miles away and it is self defense. Turkey proposes to take some troops 2 miles into Iraq to defend themselves from ongoing murder and mayhem, and it's called interference.

This irony was enough to cause me to write to the Turkey Embassy in Washington DC and cheering them on to do whatever it takes to defend their border from terrorists. I wish we would do the same in our nation!

I was torn whether to title this blog The "Leave No Terrorist Behind" Policy or "The Only Good Border is an Open Border."

It's Not Like They're Common Criminals - Ya, riiiight...

How often do we hear this line of (screwed up) reasoning regarding the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country: “Let the ones who are already here stay. Don’t deport them. It’s not like they’re common criminals. Don’t treat them like criminals.” Even our President believes this! (Click the title for his true feelings.)

Oh no? Then what are they? Law abiding citizens?

Will the average American citizen be let off of the hook for committing these comparable “petty offences”? (don’t dare call them crimes)

• Document forgery
• Driving without a license
• Breaking and entering
• Criminal trespass
• No work permit
• Income tax evasion
  …and dozens more – you get the point
  
  

And this doesn't begin to touch on the other “offences” that these poor, innocent, “immigrants”, just trying to make a buck, commit. Come to think of it, if they are willing to commit all the above offences, what level of conscience or propriety would get in the way of their lovable, petty crime wave expanding to even greener pastures. See the links, below:

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/isacrime.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

Hey, let’s treat American citizens with the same lack of regard for our laws and legal system as some are proposing to apply to illegal aliens. That should prove interesting! Yes, Mr. President, just treat the well-meaning illegals like you would average Jo Citizen.

Spending tax dollars to rebuild Islamic Mosques

Something is very strange here. We can't spend federal dollars on places of worship unless it is to rebuild an Islamic Mosque? An Islamic mosque in Iraq is bombed by a bunch of satanic psycho radicals and what do our Ambassador and President promise? "We will help you rebuild it."

Numerous Baptist churches in the United States are torched by a bunch of satanic psycho radicals and what do our leaders promise? "No federal dollars can be spent on church-related matters."

Isn't there something a bit odd about this? Why is it OK to spend our money on the religions of others but not our own? Especially a religion as full of hate and murder as that one. Am I being Islamo-phobic? Am I fearful of rattlesnakes? Well, yeah.

Quote from tonight's news:

"U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and the top American commander in Iraq also warned it was a "critical moment for Iraq" and called the bombings [of the Islamic Temple] a deliberate attempt to create sectarian tension. They promised the U.S. would contribute to the shrine's reconstruction."

Why do they call it a "shrine?" To cover the fact that it is an Islamic Temple?

Before (if ever) there is one cent spent to rebuild the facilities of a religion who's proponents wish to dominate us, shouldn't we help our own? Oh, yes, we have "separation of church and state." But apparently that is only intended to limit us in our own country. When our taxes are used in a foreign country to buy someone off, anything goes.