“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Past Injustice and Reparations



Jews claim rights to Palestinian lands to the extent that European Jews and Jews from foreign countries displace present day Arab occupants by taking their property without their consent and proper compensation. They claim rights as descendants  even though tens of centuries have come and gone past the time of their ancestral presence.

Europe and the US has acquiesced  to these claims as a form of reparations because of injustice to Jews by European Christians. The US has no dog in that hunt. 

However,  if that precedent is legitimate for the Jews (and seems to be with unquestioned US support for Israeli behavior) then the US has plenty to account for with African slave descendants and American Indians.

Or is their one standard for European Jews and no standard for American citizens of Indian and African descent?



Most Mexicans are descendants of American Indians. Their lands were taken by Europeans and European Americans



64 comments:

  1. Does anyone anywhere deserve reparations?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Answer: Maybe

    Affirmative Action is a kind of reparations in a way.

    The problems is: who justly pays the reparations ?

    A white descendent of some northern Yank soldier who died freeing the slaves ?

    Deuce, who thought the civil war should not have been fought in the first place, and Lincoln was a killer, and slavery would one day, some day, on maybe day, wither away, and meanwhile the slaves should languish in servitude ?

    Who pays ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why should any reparations be paid to someone who was, him/her self, 'born free' ?

      These are not simple, easy questions.

      Delete
    2. Go to the 6 minute mark on the third video and tell me that man was born free.

      Delete
    3. If you were born in Virginia, as I surmise, should you pay ?

      Why should a descendent of Swedish settlers who came here after the Civil War pay ?

      Am I permitted to say the man was not born into slavery ?

      My grandfather was a broom street sweeper in Sweden, before he left. He had a fifth grade education. Was he 'born free' ?

      To define the term 'born free' is tough too, when one thinks about it.

      Delete
  3. Jews claim rights to Palestinian lands to the extent that European Jews and Jews from foreign countries displace present day Arab occupants by taking their property without their consent and proper compensation.

    Jews claim their historic rights to their lands.

    There are two claims for this land. The arabs and the jews.

    The arabs? Have 899/900th of the middle east jew free.
    The jews? Have 1/900th of the middle east with 20% of it's population being arabs

    To describe it the way you do? The jews have zero claims to their lands.

    Your way of thinking will lead to war after war.

    Oh wait, that's right, the most extreme Jew haters share your views.

    You are more anti-Israel than even the official position of the PA.

    Amazing.

    But according to your logic?

    America is also an occupier.

    Are arabs "occupiers"? After all they all came from arabia.,,

    Do the arabs of the middle east OWE the Jews they drove off reparations? After all they lived there for a 1000 years before the majority of lands EVER SAW an arab..

    Now in Arabia? History is clear, the Jews of Medina owned the town, lock stock and barrel and the arabs? They murdered them and enslaved them. Do you demand that the Jews of Arabia get their lands back?

    How about the Jews of Iraq? They had been there for 3000 years

    How about the Jews of Yemen, Sudan, Egypt?

    Or is this just a one way discussion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deuce should deed his walled compound to some American Indian in Pennsylvania. And his limo, too.

      Delete
    2. And he is a prime candidate for black reparations, having said the whole enterprise of fighting to free the slaves was, really, a kind of crime.

      So, his compound, his limo, and half his income sounds about right.

      Delete
    3. Plus his Frequent Flyer Miles.

      ;)

      Delete
  4. Should the Cherokee pay reparations to the Sioux, and others ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should one part of Rufus pay reparations to the other part of Rufus ?

      What is so silly about this question ?

      Anything ?

      Same question applies to my deceased friend Jack.

      Delete
    2. Should the Arabs of Israel be forced to move out and pay reparations to the arabs that fled?

      Delete
  5. I don’t see a lot of difference to thePalestinian slums next to the Israeli walls and the slums at the US fences. Desperate human beings reduced to squalor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see the difference between a work ethic and a let Allah provide ethic. 'Palestiine' was an arid desert dump before Jewish creativity arrived.

      Same applies to San Diego and the hell hole across the border.

      Delete
    2. The ONLY reason there are "walls" to separate the palestinians, in their lands from the Israelis in their lands is the palestinian obsession for sniper fire of Israelis men, women and babies.

      The "wall" is but 2% of the total barrier, 98% is a border fence.

      More money has been poured into the palestinian controlled terrorties than any other people in the history of the world. Of course a huge amount of that aid goes to pay for terrorists families support, weapons and swiss bank accounts.

      Blame the war like obsessed palestinians for their squalor...

      Delete
  6. Who is to decide ?

    The World Court ?

    The US Supreme Court ?

    Congress ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm calling a temporary 'time out' on my participation before the discussion takes a nasty turn.

    Later.

    Cheers !!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I said a long time ago that the US had an opportunity and an obligation to the Americas, not China. WE could have made the entire Americas rich with the money we pissed away on the absurd war on terror. We owed the Chinese nothing and we exported our jobs to China.

    Now who is leading the reconstruction of Africa? China, as they are in all of Latin America and Afghanistan and when ISIS is finished they will in Iraq.

    Lincoln, had he been anything more than a statist and imperialist could have bought every slave, gave them another $1000 and he would have freed the US from a war that killed 700,000 Americans for less money than he spent on the war.

    It would have made no more difference to the welfare of ordinary Americans as to how the people of Virginia ruled themselves or the method the people in New York used.

    He killed 700,000 Americans for the glory of the masters in Washington DC? Why celebrate such a wretched fool that caused such resentment , death, destruction and poverty to the South that it increased racism for an additional hundred years?

    We had 15 Saudis out of 19 religious fanatics kill three thousand Americans and we allow the Neocons to order the killing of millions of people in countries that played no part in that attack and ignore the true culprits in Saudi Arabia.

    We indulge a racist apartheid state in Israel. Why?



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We indulge a racist apartheid state in Israel. Why?

      Israel, a place you have never been, is not racist, nor apartheid.

      Now the arab world, which you champion, tolerates no diversity, no pluralism and is in fact the most racist place on the planet.

      Your absurd view of Israel has poisoned your thought process.

      Your hatred has hardened your heart and made you irrational.

      Delete
    2. I agree with this view.

      It is bizarre.

      Gaza is an apartheid 'state'.

      The new 'Palestine' if it comes into being will be an apartheid state.

      And I find it remarkable how the Israelis get along as well as they do with the 20% Moslem population in their midst.

      Delete
    3. Gaza is not a 'State', it is part of ISrael.

      Delete
    4. Gaza is a historic part of Egypt.

      learn geography.

      Delete
    5. But I digress.

      hamas controls the lands of Gaza. It was voted in by it's people, they threw out the democratic process.

      But if it WAS a part of Israel, not ISrael?

      The arabs of the strip should be moved into the Sinai to be with their relatives.

      But wait! Egypt has declared Hamas a terrorist group and regardless of it's own historic claims on the tiny strip of lands it has clamped down on it and slammed the door shut...

      You see it's quite entertaining to watch the arabs of Egypt punish and spank the arabs of the Gaza Strip...

      Now that's entertainment...

      Delete
  9. Oh well.

    >>Lincoln, had he been anything more than a statist and imperialist could have bought every slave, gave them another $1000 and he would have freed the US from a war that killed 700,000 Americans for less money than he spent on the war.<<

    This is one of course non sense.

    Congress would have had to appropriate the money.

    The slave owners would have had to have been willing to sell.

    A ready market for slaves would be created, the Southerners would just import more and more, etc.

    The fact you call Lincoln an 'imperialist' gives you away.

    You call him an imperialist because you have some ancestral connection to the Old South, is my surmise.

    Am I correct ?

    Is there a Lost Tara lurking in the background here, now gone with the wind ?

    Pics of Tara:

    https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A86.J7wd9i1Vok4AOO0nnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--?_adv_prop=image&va=tara+gone+with+the+wind&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002

    ReplyDelete
  10. April 15, 2015
    Should President Obama be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism?
    By Newsmachete

    President Obama has removed Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, even though Cuba supports the terrorist FARC group in Columbia and has close ties with dictatorial leftist regimes like Venezuela. But that started me thinking. Since President Obama controls the executive branch of government, making him a state actor, do you think President Obama should list himself as a state sponsor of terrorism?

    1) Obama was a big supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which persecuted and killed political opponents on the road to turning Egypt into an Islamofacist state.

    2) He is tacitly supporting Iran by pushing to lift sanctions on a country that supports the terrorist group Hezb'allah. Obama is also pushing an agreement that would allow Iran to continue enriching uranium, the most vital component of nuclear weapons.

    3) Obama is pushing Israel to make dangerous concessions to the terrorist regime in Gaza and, yes, the terrorist PLO regime in the West Bank, which isn't even willing to say that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state.

    4) He is working hand in glove with brutal, terrorist Shi'ite militias and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Iraq, who murder innocent (as well as some not-so-innocent) Sunnis by the thousands.

    5) He has invited the radical group CAIR, which is affiliated with the terrorist group Hamas, repeatedly to the White House.

    6) Obama gives aid to in-name-only "moderate" rebels in Syria, knowing that such aid immediately lands in the hands of Al Nusra, the local al-Qaeda affiliate, and the Islamic State.

    In light of all these facts, do you think President Obama should list himself as a state sponsor of terrorism? If so, how much would you pay to see Marie Harf at the State Department come out and announce that the president has been added to the list?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/04/should_president_obama_be_listed_as_a_state_sponsor_of_terrorism.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. So the incompetent leader Lincoln could not get Congress to appropriate the money to free the slaves, so he went to plan B and got 700,000 Americans killed.

    If some states in the South wanted to secede so what. They weren’t going anywhere. They were not going to change the language, stop sending kids to school or stop working. They would have gotten poorer or richer, happier or sad. The sun would have still come up in the morning and set in the West.

    All the bullshit about being free people. The people in those states wanted to be free of Washington. The absurdity of getting 700,000 Americans killed by The US president and the US Army and then making the claim, post facto, that the seven hundred thousand were killed to “free the slaves” was Orwellian before Orwell. There was no saving or making of freedom. It was the opposite. It was political aggrandizement of the worst kind and after the killing of the seven hundred thousand, the killing in the imperial expansion continued wit wars against the western Indian tribes, war and occupation against Mexico, The Philippines, Cuba and Hawaii.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wholeheartedly agree.

      Delete
    2. The ancient act of human slavery, practiced in ancient Israel and every other part of the World, was ending. It was over. By the 1870s every American country ended slavery without a civil war, with the exception of The US. All those countries were no practicing the expansion of their own version of their empire and ended slavery by freeing them with a law.

      Lincoln whose core competency was getting 700,000 of his fellow countrymen killed, who ruled over the single largest disaster in US history was a disaster. He served no one but the imperialist vision of the big money interests. You see glory in that. I see something quite the opposite. I like my people alive, with liberty and with the ability to pursue happiness, given them by their creator and taken from them by the great killer Lincoln.

      Delete
    3. And I stopped the bastard from having any part whatsoever of the wars against the western Indian tribes, war and occupation against Mexico, The Philippines, Cuba and Hawaii.

      I'm an American hero.

      (You won't have to put up with me for long, Deuce, I'm out of here soon. Another big work day here)

      Delete
    4. It wasn't Lincoln that started the Civil War. The abolitionist sentiment in the Northeast was white hot. Something was bound to crack, with Lincoln or without Lincoln. If the South had gone its separate ways there is no assurance slavery would have ever ended in the South, regardless of what happened elsewhere. I used to think so too but have my doubts today. If John Deere put the field slaves out of business, there would always be industrial slavery to fill to vacuum. After all it took Federal troops again to even allow blacks to set at the same lunch counters with whites. If the South had become a separate nation, they may well have supported the Germans in the World Wars.

      Anyway I think your view is absurd and I've had my say, so I'm dropping the subject and saying

      Have a great Tax Day everyone !

      Cheers !!

      Delete
    5. Abraham Lincoln was laughing at a punch line at a stage play when he was shot once in the back of the head. He never regained consciousness and died nine hours later.

      Tuesday marked the 150th anniversary of the day that John Wilkes Booth snuck into the presidential box at Ford’s Theatre during a performance of the farcical comedy “Our American Cousin.” Actor Harry Hawk, alone on stage, gave what Booth knew was one of the funniest lines in the play: “Don’t know the manners of good society, eh? Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside out, old gal; you sockdologizing old man-trap!”

      As always, uproarious laughter followed, and that was when the assassin — an actor himself and a rebel sympathizer — pulled the trigger. At 7:22 a.m. the next day, in a cramped bed in a boardinghouse across from the theater, Lincoln died. Wednesday is the 150th anniversary of his death.

      For a century and a half, Lincoln has been seen as a national martyr, as the final casualty of the Civil War. And that’s how he was viewed in the hours and days following his killing — but not by everyone.

      As historian Martha Hodes notes in her new book “Mourning Lincoln,” there was a significant portion of the American populace, even in the North, happy the president had met his death.

      “In Boston,” Hodes writes, “an Irish cook made her politics known in front of her employers by ‘laughing all day’ when the news arrived.”

      Even some fire-breathing, anti-slavery members of Lincoln’s own Republican Party, afraid of the president’s conciliatory tone toward the former Confederate states, were glad rather than sad over his assassination. One disgusted congressman wrote in his diary: “Universal feeling among radical men here is that his death is a godsend.”

      Delete
    6. In surveys of historians on the rankings of the American presidents, Lincoln is almost always in the top position, just ahead of George Washington. He fought and won the Civil War. He reunited the nation. He was the moving force in the emancipation of American slaves. In the Gettysburg Address, he gave the nation a vision of almost Biblical grandeur and depth.

      Yet, if the 16th president had survived his second term, he certainly wouldn’t have been seen as a national saint. His legacy would have been much less clear.

      After all, Lincoln was one of America’s most controversial chief executives — criticized for acting unilaterally to limit civil liberties, suspending the writ of habeas corpus and imprisoning without trial thousands of rebel sympathizers.

      In summer 1863, following the July 4 victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, he was riding high, but, a year later, he was so downhearted about his prospects for a second term that he wrote that it seemed “exceedingly probable that this administration will not be re-elected.”

      Lincoln’s violent death, coming as it did in the days just after the Civil War had been won, deeply affected the way Americans of later generations came to view him. He’s on the penny. He’s on the $5 bill. He’s Honest Abe, Father Abraham. He’s remembered for his final sacrifice, not for all the political head-butting that left his reputation bruised and battered until the very end.

      Later presidents have suffered in comparison. How do you compete with a martyr?

      Delete
    7. Lincoln’s violent death, coming as it did in the days just after the Civil War had been won, deeply affected the way Americans of later generations came to view him. He’s on the penny. He’s on the $5 bill. He’s Honest Abe, Father Abraham. He’s remembered for his final sacrifice, not for all the political head-butting that left his reputation bruised and battered until the very end.

      Later presidents have suffered in comparison. How do you compete with a martyr?

      The lesson of Lincoln’s life as president — those years leading up to his death — is that every resident of the White House has successes and failures. And that’s worthwhile keeping in mind during Barack Obama’s second term as political commentators work overtime creating a cottage industry of evaluating his legacy.

      Almost from the beginning of Obama’s second term, we’ve been treated to opinion pieces with headlines such as “Obama is the worst president ever” and “12 reasons why Obama is one of the best presidents ever.”

      As always in such second-term handicapping, no matter the president, this is a case of premature evaluation.

      At some point, far in the future, well after Obama has left the White House, historians will have the critical distance to be able to adequately weigh his successes and failures and get a fairly legitimate sense of his place in American history. But not now.

      Consider this: If Lincoln had come home from the play that night 150 years ago, he probably would have found on his breakfast table, some morning a few months later, a newspaper with this headline:

      “Lincoln is the worst president ever.”

      Patrick T. Reardon, a former scholar-in-residence at the Newberry Library in Chicago, is a member of the advisory board of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum. He wrote this for the Chicago Tribune.

      Delete
    8. The only tragedy in Lincoln getting shot was the delay in getting it done and the caliber of the gun.

      Delete
  12. Right.

    John Wilkes Booth, an American Presidential assassin and American Hero, should be on the $5 dollar bill.

    I've been thinking of buying a used Lincoln I know of for one of mine. 77,000 miles and in perfect shape. Not so good on gas.

    You've convinced me to buy it.

    Following is an article about your new good bud, Obama --

    April 15, 2015
    Netanyahu Not the Cause of Obama's Dislike of Israel
    By Rabbi Aryeh Spero

    Much has been said about the strange behavior of Barack Obama, who can’t let a day go without maligning Israel and Mr. Netanyahu. In contrast, he displays friendship to a thug and anti-Semite like Recip Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, palled around with the deceased communist Hugo Chavez, and keeps standing up for the Iranian mullahs who want to kill us all or make us slaves to Islam. Those in the media who see politics simply as a stand-off between personalities ascribe all this to a clash of personalities: Obama doesn’t like PM Netanyahu and Netanyahu returns the dislike.

    No doubt the dislike is there, but what underlies the animosity of Obama toward PM Netanyahu goes beyond schmoozability to seismic differences in outlook and policy. In fact, at Mr. Netanyahu’s very first White House meeting, before they really knew each other, Obama purposely mistreated PM Netanyahu by forcing him to enter through a side entrance and, then, abruptly left the meeting and went upstairs by himself for dinner while leaving PM Netanyahu and his staff without hospitality or even a piece of bread. This was a deliberate, unheard of disparagement, directed more at Israel, the state represented by Netanyahu, than it was at Mr. Netanyahu per se.

    Just last month, Barack Obama published classified information showing the world photographs of Israel’s hidden nuclear site, and its inner workings. It was his gift to Iran, Hamas, and ISIS. This puts Israel and her citizens, not just Mr. Netanyahu, at great risk. But, Obama had his people darken out all the information on that page regarding the nuclear sites of other countries.

    At a meeting at the White House in 2009, Obama stated early-on that “it’s time to put daylight between Israel and America”. This was done before Obama had even met Benjamin Netanyahu.

    Last month, Obama again singled out Israel by crudely questioning Israel as a democracy, though it’s Israel that has an Arab Supreme Court Justice, provides medical for all, and has four Arab political parties that just won 14 seats. Obama is throwing out these malicious daily barbs so as to brainwash Americans into believing Israel and America do not share the same values. He wants to break the historic bonds between America and Israel, between Israelis and Americans. His intent is to permanently tarnish Israel, not just hurt its present prime minister. In that vein, Obama has denied visas to Israelis more than any other group, all the while zealously providing visas to those from Arabic/Muslim countries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our president has no condemnation for Arab countries where Jews and Christians are forbidden their own political parties nor allowed to sit as judges judging Muslims. Obama accepts the shariah that forbids this.

      Further proof of Obama’s scheme: he had his young underlings call Israel a “racist” state, something he never says about Islamic countries which, in principle under shariah, actually do consider non-Muslims as infidels and second class, that their churches and synagogues be destroyed, where Christian and Jewish women are treated as fodder and permissible meat, and our bibles banned and thrown in the garbage. Yet, we hear no condemnation from Obama. It is reserved for Israel. When a person singles out Jews or the Jewish state for things he finds acceptable in others… that’s anti-Semitism.

      Recently, he let Israel’s enemies know that he, Obama, will not support Israel, which encourages and provides a Green Light. The physical attacks will be against Israel, not just Netanyahu… and Obama knows it. To that end, he has taken Hizb’allah and Iran off our list of terror organizations. Instead, he has the State Dept. deny Israeli generals visas. His heart is darkened against Israel.

      He prohibited flights to Israel for almost two days during her recent defensive war against Hamas missiles being shot from Gaza. He has not done this in other war zones. He even stopped the routine supply of needed ammunition to Israel during the war. He is deaf to Israel’s concern over ISIS, Hamas, and Iran pitched at Israel’s borders, and he insists that Israel relinquish these lands to make a Palestinian state that he knows will be a launching pad for these terrorist groups against Israel and her children.

      The Netanyahu story is a cover, a convenient excuse and ruse to weaken and stigmatize Israel. Unfortunately, many are falling for it. Obama’s everyday bullying is exclusive to Israel. So, let the truth be said: Obama doesn’t like Israel. There is something in his ethnic background that teaches, as part of its outlook, the need to not only vanquish but also humiliate the Jew, the Christian. More than a clash of personalities, it centers on Obama’s dislike of a truly sovereign and independent Israel living proudly in its biblical homeland, and his intense dislike for Israeli nationalism.

      Similarly, he dislikes American patriotism, demonizing those affectionate about America as people who cling to flag, religion, and guns. He dismisses those unwilling to renounce America’s Judeo-Christian underpinning, as well as those not gullible enough to buy into the foolish and false narrative of America being, as he says, the “largest Muslim country in the world, where Muslims have contributed to its development since America’s founding”.

      Mr. Obama seems irritated and indifferent to non-Islamic, non-black narratives. He expects others to feel guilty and burdened by their own history, making themselves, in repentance, secondary and in service to the aspirations of groups he prefers.

      Obama doesn’t like an Israel proud of itself as a Jewish state, nor does he like an America loyal to its heritage and unique values, be it free enterprise, taking responsibility for one’s fate, or the make-up of its historic middle class. He wishes to transform both countries, denude them of their historic identity. He wants to do to Israel what he has been doing to America: change its demographics by bringing in those who, when offered freebies, will vote for left-wing parties, who think little of a nation’s specific history and unique ethos. He does so here by flooding our country with illegal immigrants, and in Israel, by insisting that Israel allow into its borders millions of Arabs who will vote to make Israel’s Jewishness a thing of the past, something illegal. Mr. Netanyahu stands in his way!

      Delete
    2. What Mr. Obama wants above all else is to strip Israel of David’s city, its eternal capital, Jerusalem, and hand the ancient, historic city to Islam. Obama knows that whoever controls and manages historic Jerusalem can lay claim to the Land’s entirety. Jerusalem is the heart and pride of Israel. He wants to snatch the pride Israelis have in Jerusalem as surely as he tries to take from us our pride in American Exceptionalism, something he denies and derides. Toward this end, he is fervently trying to decouple liberal American Jews from Israel. By constantly accusing Israel of "racism, extremism, colonialism, lack of compassion and soul” -- the effective buzz phrases -- he hopes liberal Jews will be embarrassed to support Israel. He is succeeding, similar to how he is turning the Democrat Party away from Israel.

      Talking heads, who make their living jawboning in conventional, boiler-plate paradigms, think of Obama as they would other presidents, instead of seeing him the way he must be seen. He is not like other presidents, nor is he simply more to the Left than previous presidents. He is an ideologue through and through, and his ideology is rooted in Marxism and certain forms of Islamism. We need to see in Obama’ actions not the political maneuverings we suspect in others, but direct, unalloyed, reflections of his dogmas and goals.

      He wants the treaty with Iran not because it’s a feather in his cap. Let’s be more direct. He wants it because he wants it. He wants Iran to have the bomb. Not to use it, necessarily, but for the power and leverage it will give Iran over Israel, and the pride and strength it will furnish the Ummah. He wants a stronger Iran, not a weaker or checked Iran.

      He dislikes Netanyahu because he dislikes an Israeli leader who wants to keep Israel Jewish, who stands for Jerusalem, and won’t have his people bandied about to satisfy Obama’s’ lust for Islamic hegemony. Obama is used to Jews, the Hyde Park Chicago Jews and other liberal Jews, who see Jewish needs as secondary and sacrificial to the demands of other minorities; liberal Jews who subsume Jewish aspirations and needs for whatever is considered the “civil rights” fashion of the day. To them, ironically, Jewishness is authentic only when Jewishness becomes a vehicle for a cause outside of any specific Jewish need and identity. They have redefined Jewishness to be political universalism. Obama is uncomfortable with a Jewish-Jew like Netanyahu who does not define nor limit the existence of Jews to self-nullification in behalf of the latest leftwing Cause. He has Jews in his administration and among the liberal fraternity who are all too willing to do his destructive bidding… in the name of “Judaism”, of course.

      Delete
    3. Obama’s inner identity is tied to Islam. We all identify with the ethos of our formative years. His father and stepfather were Islamic, as is his family back in Kenya and Indonesia. His brothers are active Islamists. He was raised on the Koran in Islamic countries, and attended Islamic madrassa and grew up with its attitudes, sights and sounds, aspirations and narrative, likes and dislikes. As I grew up to favor Israel, he grew up to dislike it. Simple as that. Most of my Christian friends, Bible believers, were also raised with the biblical narrative, which admires Israel’s place in our theology and in the cosmos.

      The Marxism Obama was fed, from very early on, made him viscerally dislike successful Western countries, such as America, Israel, and Britain. He was taught they were colonizers and imperialist. Yet, he finds nothing imperialistic or colonial about Islam’s takeover, throughout the centuries, of northern and central Africa, Lebanon, Babylon and Persia, the Balkans, the Mediterranean areas, Malaysia and Indonesia, and other parts of Asia, vast tracts of what was India, and countless Christian and Hindu neighborhoods and cities. Not to see colonialism and imperialism in these conquests tells us a lot about Obama’s perspective. Love is blind. We don’t see flaws in that and those we love. But, we sure see them, always, in that which we dislike. Obama’s dislike for a strong, independent, proud Jewish renaissance in the Holy Land predates Netanyahu.

      As with America, the next two years will be difficult, for Obama has set his antagonistic sights on America and Israel… as well as its citizens. Obama has spent the last 50 years waiting for these next two.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/netanyahu_not_the_cause_of_obamas_dislike_of_israel.html

      Deuce, the lid has popped off your teapot.

      Showered and ready to go, I'm outta here for the day.

      Delete
    4. Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson has done it again...

      Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, the man that tells US that theft is 'righteous', if you are needy.
      That stealing is not stealing, it is 'payback'. If it is Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson doing the stealing.

      He sanctifies the Zionist theft of Palestine, then blames the Palestinians when they object.
      He does not recognize when others are on their knees, he blames them for their poverty, but he never blamed himself.

      I was on my knees, and fighting for my economic life, ... But that wasn't really stealing, just payback. ... It was tough, in them days. ...

      Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson did not buckle down, go get a job, no ...
      He ripped off a bank, became a thief.
      Conspired with his lawyer, institutionalized the victim, his own aunt, to escape prosecution and restitution.

      You go, Bob !

      Delete
  13. The eighth largest economy in the world received 26% of its electricity from (non-large hydro) Renewables, yesterday.

    Big Time

    ReplyDelete
  14. U.S. History
    What If Lincoln Had Lived?
    Apr 14, 2015 11:50 AM ET // by Eric Niiler

    As America remembers the events at Ford's Theater 150 years ago tonight, many are wondering how things might have been different had John Wilkes Booth missed his shot, or if President Lincoln had just stayed home instead of following his wife Mary's wishes for a night of entertainment.

    Would Lincoln have been a successful second-term president? Would the reconstruction of the South been handled better with a strong and powerful leader such as Lincoln in charge? Would western cities like Denver or Phoenix have become home to free slaves and perhaps a new, more powerful black middle class? Or would Lincoln have become like Winston Churchill, a war hero who was later tossed out by voters when Great Britain's economy turned sour?
    The Discovernator serves up amazing facts, piping hot. Get more here!
    DCI

    In the short term, historians say Lincoln would have better managed the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, a time when Confederate leaders were pardoned and remained in power, while slaves were free in name only. The botched Reconstruction of the South led to a century of bad feelings, racial tension and a region that lagged behind the rest of the United States in both economy and education.
    Rarely Seen Faces of the Civil War

    Play Video
    What was the Lincoln Conspiracy?
    When John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in Ford's Theatre on April 14, 1865, he was a part of a larger conspiracy that aimed to decapitate the Union government.
    Hulton Archive/Getty Images

    "It's hard to imagine being worse that it was under (President) Andrew Johnson," said Allen Guelzo, director of the Civil War Era Studies Program at Gettysburg College. "We might have avoided a lot of the icebergs in terms of Jim Crow, segregation and racial hostility."

    Guelzo says Lincoln was at the height of his popularity and political power after being re-elected in 1864 with his Republican party firmly in control of both houses of Congress. He also had the grudging respect of many white southerners.

    Lincoln would have pushed for full voting rights for freed blacks, according to Guelzo, by giving them financial help to settle new lands out West through the Freedmen's Bureau. Landowners were considered citizens with voting rights, even though southern legislators did their best to throw obstacles in their way, like literacy tests and poll taxes. Lincoln's successor Andrew Johnson tried to veto the Freedmen's Bureau and it expired in 1872.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guelzo believes Lincoln would have encouraged blacks to move out of the South into the vast expanses of the West where they could start anew as landowners, railroad workers and settlers.

      "It would have been a perfectly logical conclusion to look to the West to give blacks a second chance without southern whites around," Guelzo said. "I could picture Lincoln at the driving of the Golden Spike in 1869 in Utah, and two black laborers flanking him."

      Western cities might have become home to significant black communities, like Chicago, Atlanta or Washington, D.C. today.

      The South would also have been scrubbed of Confederate leaders who persisted in their belief of the "Lost Cause" of the Civil War. Under President Johnson, himself a former slaveowner and also a white southerner who was pro-Union, Confederate leaders were pardoned instead of tried.

      "It would have been a kind of [post World War II] de-Nazification, minus the show trials," Guelzo said. "Lincoln didn't want trials or hangings. But he wanted them driven into exile. He would have been happy if Jefferson Davis and his company would go to Mexico or Brazil or Egypt. That would have decapitated the old southern leadership."
      Did President Lincoln Believe in God?

      A second-term President Lincoln would have also faced challenges, according to Joseph Glatthaar, history professor at the University of North Carolina, such as the beginning of wars between Native Americans and settlers on the new frontier, as well as a post-war depression.

      "There would have been an economic downturn with a million men in uniform in the Union army," Glatthaar said. "Those guys are going to have to be demobilized and they needed jobs. Usually in aftermath of the war you have an economic downturn, that might have affected his reputation."

      Instead of a lame duck Lincoln, the South and the North kept a fragile peace together under Andrew Johnson, who historians consider one of America's worst presidents. Lincoln consistently ranks as number one.

      Delete
    2. Oh. what he would have done. That settles it then.

      Delete
  15. If Gaza is to be considered part of Egypt, why then all of ISrael must be too.
    The entire land area, ISrael, and the Occupied Territories, to include Gaza, is smaller than Maricopa County, in Arizona.

    Whether or not, historically, Gaza was part of Egypt, is really a mute point.
    ISrael retains sovereignty over Gaza, controlling access, immigration and the borders.

    Those are the things that create sovereignty, ISrael has sovereignty that over Gaza.
    That there is a low level civil war waging in ISrael, plain to see.

    {;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ISrael has that sovereignty over Gaza.

      ... waging ..., upon review that could have been raging, or not.

      Delete
    2. Whether or not, historically, Gaza was part of Egypt, is really a mute point.
      ISrael retains sovereignty over Gaza, controlling access, immigration and the borders.


      Actually I see you failed your geography lesson Jack.

      Egypt shares the most established border with Gaza, if fact a major Gazan city, Rafah is cut in half…

      Your application of standards is quite, shall we say? Moronic.

      Might I suggest you go back to grade school and learn to read a map?

      Israel does not control the borders of Gaza, after all how does Iran export to the Hamas government a billion dollars in weapons if Israel controlled it?

      Regardless of your meaningless opinion?

      Egypt is slamming the strip closed….

      LOL

      Brother arabs beating the shit out of brother arabs…


      The way it should be...

      Delete
    3. They are all Semites, in the Middle East.
      Kissin' Cousins living in Arabia ...

      If those European Ashkenazi really are Semites, that is.

      Whether or not their perpetual fight with their cousins is the way it should be ...
      Who really cares?

      {;-)

      Delete
    4. Well, I love how you never mention the millions of Jews that have never moved from the middle east that were thrown out of their homes by the arabs?

      But your insights suck to be blunt and your opinions? Worthless.

      As usual.

      Might I suggest you go back and shovel some horse shit?

      Delete
    5. You may suggest whatever you wish, "O"rdure.

      Delete
    6. The name's What is "Occupation"

      Learn, Love, Use it.

      Delete
    7. No, "O"rdure, that is not going to happen.

      Get "O"ver It.

      Delete

  16. It’s Operation Retake Mosul: Tony Abbott


    As about 300 Brisbane-based troops today begin deploying for a two-year training mission north of Baghdad, the Prime Minister said the soldiers will educate local forces in military tactics and how to win the “hearts and minds” of Iraq’s estranged Sunni minority.

    “Preparing the Iraqi security forces for the next phase of the campaign — and ultimately to retake Mosul, the death cult’s de facto capital in Iraq — is the vital next step,” Mr Abbott writes in The Australian today.

    “As well as critical military skills, our personnel will provide mentoring and training in professional military conduct, including the law of armed conflict. Winning hearts and minds will be crucial if the threat posed by ISIL is to be reduced and ultimately destroyed.”

    Noting the key role of Shia ­militias and Iranian Special Forces in recapturing Tikrit, Mr Abbott hopes the joint Australia-New Zealand mission will train “disciplined” soldiers who are “directed by and responsible to the legitimate government of Iraq. The stronger the Iraqi regular army is, the less likely it is that Shi’ite militia will play a continuing role in the ultimate retaking of the country. This is a difficult and dangerous task. It will take time and sustained effort. There will be setbacks as well as further advances.”

    The current 200-strong Special Forces “advise and assist” mission will draw down after July this year, although the air force will continue striking ISIS targets in Iraq and supporting US-led bombings across the region.



    ReplyDelete

  17. Twenty Turkish officers provide military training for fighters of al-Hashid al-Watani.


    Turkish officers are participating in the training of 800 fighters in a camp located in al-Shikhan district 12 kilometers north of Mosul in northern Iraq.

    The fighters receive military techniques including defusing explosive devices, a commander told Anadolu Agency on Tuesday.

    Mahmud Surchi, a Kurdish commander of the al-Hashid al-Watani, said 550 fighters had completed their training and 800 others would finish theirs in the near future. A further 500 others will join the camp later for military training.

    Flags of Iraq and the Kurdish regional government fly in the camp which is being protected by Kurdish Peshmerga forces.

    Many commanders who train the fighters are from the Iraqi army, coalition countries and Turkey.

    Wide operation

    There are 20 Turkish officers that provide military training in the camp, but the number of the Turkish officers is expected to be raised, Surchi said.



    http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/157870/iraq-fighters-receive-training-for-mosul-operation

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Most Mexicans are descendants of American Indians"

    That's news to me and my amigos. We're mostly Spanish, 70% of us. Some of us got a little Mayan or Aztec mixed in. There's not a Cherokee among us.


    ReplyDelete
  19. That has got to be one of the dumbest things you have ever posted, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Syrian Air Force Destroys Large Al-Qaeda Convoy Entering Syria Via Turkey

    The Syrian Arab Air Force (SAAF) dealt a powerful blow to the Syrian Al-Qaeda group “Jabhat Al-Nusra” on Tuesday, as they carried out a number of airstrikes near the Turkish border-city of ‘Azaz, resulting in the destruction of up-to 24 armored vehicles on the Gaziantep-‘Azaz Highway (D-850).

    According to a military source, the Syrian Air Force Intelligence received information from a source at the Turkish border, who provided details regarding the militant group’s movements before they launched this vicious assault in the northern Syrian city of ‘Azaz.

    As a result of this aerial assault, Jabhat Al-Nusra’s reinforcements suffered a substantial hit that obstructed the movement of their forces to the battlefront in southern Aleppo; this highway was used to transport supplies to the Islamist rebels operating around the province.

    The convoy’s final destination was unknown to the SAAF pilots who carried out the assault on Jabhat Al-Nusra; however, it is believed that these reinforcements were meant to join forces with the Islamist fighters besieging the northern Aleppo village of Bashkoy.

    Jabhat Al-Nusra has continuously attempted to . . . . . .

    Ahh, Turkey

    ReplyDelete
  21. Can Other Cities Match Georgetown’s Low-Cost Switch To 100% Wind & Sun?

    Originally published at ilsr.org

    This is probably not the first place you’ve read about Georgetown, TX, the town of 55,000 that will be getting the equivalent of 100% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2017. But few articles hit upon the two key reasons Georgetown was able to make this move when so many other cities with abundant renewable resources (e.g. Tucson, AZ) are stuck with a majority-coal-fired electricity supply.

    If cities had these keys, many could obtain 100% renewable energy at a surprisingly low cost.

    Key #1: Local Ownership

    Just 1 in 7 Americans gets their electricity from one of about 2,000 municipal utilities, but these locally controlled utilities allow a community to chart its own electric future. It’s the key behind Palo Alto’s surge toward carbon neutral electricity, toward Austin’s 35% renewable by 2020 goal, and Sacramento’s ability to pursue a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from electricity by 2050.

    Unfortunately, this local self-determination isn’t enough, because there are many other municipal utilities with only a pittance of renewable energy on their grid system. And that leads to…

    Key #2: No Contracts

    The Georgetown municipal utility closed its last power plant in 1945, and has contracted with third parties to provide electricity ever since. With the expiration of its major supply contract in 2012, it was free to sign new contracts. This freedom is what has allowed other utilities like tiny Farmers Electric Cooperative in Iowa to become the number one solar utility in the country.

    Georgetown didn’t pursue renewable energy for environmental reasons, but simply because it was the best investment for their customers. The 150 megawatts of solar PV and 145 megawatts of wind power will supply as much as double the town’s annual electricity use, ensuring sufficient supply year round even with fluctuations in sunshine and wind, and allow the town to sell the excess into Texas electricity markets. As attractive as the price—which was lower than the town’s current wholesale electricity costs—the solar and wind contracts have zero volatility because they have zero fuel cost, insulating Georgetown electric customers from rising fossil fuel prices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Self-Reliance not Self-Sufficiency

      It’s worth noting that the solar and wind contracts don’t mean that Georgetown will be completely reliant on the sun and wind. Their grid remains interconnected to the rest of the Texas electricity system, so in periods of zero wind and zero sun, the town can still tap into the ERCOT spot market for power. However, the wind and solar resource tend to balance one another. As the city’s press release notes, “This means that wind power can most often fill power demand when the sun isn’t shining.”

      A Low-Cost Copy?

      Could other cities follow suit? If they had the two keys that Georgetown did, almost certainly. ILSR’s analysis suggests that path to 100% renewable energy is surprisingly inexpensive.

      Our approach was to analyze the path to 100% renewable energy via wind and solar power alone, for the largest municipal electric utility in each state (i.e. cities with Key #1, and hopefully a timeline to obtain Key #2). The following map shows that 15 of the largest city-owned electric companies (mostly in the Midwest) could contract for 100% renewable energy at 7.5¢ per kilowatt-hour (kWh) or less. Another 18 could do so for less than 9¢ per kWh. The final 14 could contract for 100% wind and solar for 10.3¢ per kWh or less. Detailed assumptions and calculations are shown at the bottom of this post.


      Map

      The map is pretty clear: Georgetown may be the first municipal utility to procure 100% renewable energy (and not just renewable energy credits), but it won’t be the last. As costs continue to fall for renewable energy, many more cities can make the rapid shift to 100% wind and sun.

      Photo credit: Jim Nix via Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license)

      This article originally posted at ilsr.org. For timely updates, follow John Farrell on Twitter or get the Democratic Energy weekly update.

      Delete
    2. The cost of solar and solar resource potential was calculated using the National Renewable Energy Laboratory System Advisor Model, with an installed cost of $2.55/Watt, $20 per kilowatt annual maintenance costs, use of both federal accelerated depreciation and 30% tax credit, financing 100% of the system cost at 8% interest on a 10 year loan, a 5% real discount rate over 25 years, and a 2¢ per kWh margin for the developer.

      The cost of wind power was calculated by ILSR assuming an installed cost of $1.63/Watt (source), $49 per kilowatt annual maintenance costs, use of federal accelerated depreciation but no tax credits, financing 100% of the system cost at 8% interest on a 10 year loan, a 6% real discount rate over 20 years, and a 1¢ per kWh margin for the developer. The wind resource was based on a weighted average of Wind Action’s 2011-13 capacity factor analysis where available, LBNL’s Wind Technologies Market Report or an ILSR estimate of 20% capacity factor (used for all states in the Southeast with no current wind power installed).

      The reported cost on the map is the weighted average price of power, based on the mix of wind and solar . . . .

      21st Century Time

      Delete