THE SOUND OF SANITY IN AN INSANE WORLD. A CONSERVATIVE VOICE YOU CAN TRUST.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Deputy Speaker Of Hamas Parliament: We Will Sweep The Siblings Of Pigs And Apes [i.e., Jews] Out Of Our Land
The over 1,000 Palestinians released today, including hundreds with blood on their hands for some of the worst terror attacks on Israel, are no doubt celebrating with slime like Deputy Speaker of Hamas Parliament Ahmad Bahr. They will rejoin his effort with added energy to sweep the siblings of apes and pigs out of the Middle East. Everyone is happy that Gilad Shalit has finally returned home, but in terms of justice to the victim's families, the morale of counter-terror soldiers, the long-term strategic and security interests of Israel, and keeping Israelis secure from future attacks, was this not a blunder? The joy over Gilad's overdue release is unfortunately tempered by these realities.
This prisoner exchange of over 1,000 prisoners for Gilad Shalit is reason enough alone for Israel to introduce the death penalty for terrorists. That way next time when Hamas or some other Arab enemy asks for someone's release (and there will be a next time), Israel could tell them, "Sorry, Al-Kaboom , we can't negotiate for that murderer's release because we already did him the favor of allowing him to finally find out if he will be meeting his seventy two virgins."
This prisoner exchange of over 1,000 prisoners for Gilad Shalit is reason enough alone for Israel to introduce the death penalty for terrorists. That way next time when Hamas or some other Arab enemy asks for someone's release (and there will be a next time), Israel could tell them, "Sorry, Al-Kaboom , we can't negotiate for that murderer's release because we already did him the favor of allowing him to finally find out if he will be meeting his seventy two virgins."
Monday, October 17, 2011
That Which Gets Rewarded, Gets Repeated: Counter-Terror Soldiers Protest Gilad Shalit Prisoner Release Deal With Hamas
Imagine the Israeli government asked you to risk your life to capture a terrorist, and that you did so. Imagine that soldiers have died fulfilling those orders. Then imagine those terrorists were to be released by that same Israeli government. Next time that same government asked your unit to go on a similar mission, what would you now think? These men therefore make the strongest argument against Israel's prisoner release deal that is soon to result in the too long overdue freedom of hostage Gilad Shalit: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/148760#.Tp0NwOywWcO
That which gets rewarded gets repeated. I told this to someone recently and he responded that assumes that Hamas is not already attempting to kidnap more soldiers regardless of the deal. This retort is baseless because it ignores the fact that the incentive for this was already created before this deal. Prisoner exchanges have taken place in the past. In fact, in Israel's nine prisoner exchanges with Arab enemies, dating back to the first, 54 years ago, Israel has freed 13,509 prisoners in order to win the release of a total of 16 soldiers. An average of well over 800 for each one. On July 16, 2008, Hezbollah gave back the two kidnapped bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev in exchange for Palestine Liberation Front terrorist convicted murderer Samir Kuntar (his hero's welcome party was even broadcasted for all to see the great victory of terror) and a couple hundred others. That was not even to save a life, but only to bring back bodies. Today one can see the exchange for Gilad.
Israel created this incentive to kidnap Israeli soldiers before this deal by its previous deals and concessions to terrorism. Why else would Hamas not slit the throat of Shalit the way jihadists in other parts of the world have? It's certainly not because of their humanitarian tendencies toward an Israeli soldier. It's because they knew having him alive in captivity was useful and that eventually they could get, in their words, a "victory" which they just achieved this last week. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad also declared it to be a victory for the jihad. Israel has once again reaffirmed that. If those jihadists facing the American military thought they could get such a deal by a single kidnapping, perhaps less Americans would have their heads slit off on video. No other country would even think of making such a deal. Everyone must celebrate the return of Gilad, but no one can think that Israel's policies of negotiating with these terrorists, of making concessions to these Islamoterrorists like handing them Gaza on a silver platter (under a deluded belief that withdrawal would further peace) or releasing over a thousand prisoners, hundreds serving life sentences for some of the worst terror attacks on Israel, does anything more than once gain embolden them. It lets them quite reasonably believe their terror successfully leads to "Zionist failure." Continuing to reinforce this belief yet again in a very dangerous way simply does not serve Israel's long term strategic interest, nor does it help to keep Israelis safe.
Hamas has promised more kidnappings. They would have to be idiots not to put in every effort they have to keep trying.
That which gets rewarded gets repeated. I told this to someone recently and he responded that assumes that Hamas is not already attempting to kidnap more soldiers regardless of the deal. This retort is baseless because it ignores the fact that the incentive for this was already created before this deal. Prisoner exchanges have taken place in the past. In fact, in Israel's nine prisoner exchanges with Arab enemies, dating back to the first, 54 years ago, Israel has freed 13,509 prisoners in order to win the release of a total of 16 soldiers. An average of well over 800 for each one. On July 16, 2008, Hezbollah gave back the two kidnapped bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev in exchange for Palestine Liberation Front terrorist convicted murderer Samir Kuntar (his hero's welcome party was even broadcasted for all to see the great victory of terror) and a couple hundred others. That was not even to save a life, but only to bring back bodies. Today one can see the exchange for Gilad.
Israel created this incentive to kidnap Israeli soldiers before this deal by its previous deals and concessions to terrorism. Why else would Hamas not slit the throat of Shalit the way jihadists in other parts of the world have? It's certainly not because of their humanitarian tendencies toward an Israeli soldier. It's because they knew having him alive in captivity was useful and that eventually they could get, in their words, a "victory" which they just achieved this last week. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad also declared it to be a victory for the jihad. Israel has once again reaffirmed that. If those jihadists facing the American military thought they could get such a deal by a single kidnapping, perhaps less Americans would have their heads slit off on video. No other country would even think of making such a deal. Everyone must celebrate the return of Gilad, but no one can think that Israel's policies of negotiating with these terrorists, of making concessions to these Islamoterrorists like handing them Gaza on a silver platter (under a deluded belief that withdrawal would further peace) or releasing over a thousand prisoners, hundreds serving life sentences for some of the worst terror attacks on Israel, does anything more than once gain embolden them. It lets them quite reasonably believe their terror successfully leads to "Zionist failure." Continuing to reinforce this belief yet again in a very dangerous way simply does not serve Israel's long term strategic interest, nor does it help to keep Israelis safe.
Hamas has promised more kidnappings. They would have to be idiots not to put in every effort they have to keep trying.
New York Times On Transgender Changes In Public Schools, Social Media, And More: Cultural Decay With "The Freedom To Choose Your Pronoun"
The New York Times reported on September 30, 2011 that there are "semantic variations" that "are part of a nascent effort worldwide to acknowledge some sort of neutral ground between male and female, starting at the youngest ages." The article tells you how Katy Butler, age 16, "updated her status on Facebook with an enthusiastic shout-out for Google+, the social network’s latest rival. 'Oh my God Google! I love it! I was signing up for Google+ and they asked me my gender and the choices were male, female or OTHER!!!!! Oh ya Google!'" The article then explains that she first encountered "transgendered" indoctrination in public school in seventh grade. It was there that she learned about a "gender option at a meeting of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning and Allies (LGBTQQA)." Further, "[i]n the United States, the transgender movement is beginning to find advocates in high schools." The article reports that a "growing number of high school and college students...are questioning the gender roles society assigns individuals simply because they have been born male or female." Western governments are now adopting these changes as "Australia last month issued new passport guidelines allowing citizens to give their official gender as male, female or indeterminate. In Britain, the Home Office is also considering a third gender category on passports, according to reports." In fact, FoxNews.com just reported that a lesbian couple in Berkeley, California has begun subjecting an 11 year old boy to hormone treatments.
Rabbi Avi Shafran stated in June 2011 that "from the perspective of the Jewish religious tradition, a person’s sexual identity is dependent on the sex he or she is born as, assuming that the person’s genitals are unambiguous." Rabbi Shafran's opinion is clearly the traditional Jewish position, but it in fact represents the wider traditional position before alternative feminist ideas were introduced. I quote Rabbi Shafran because his position represents a much wider approach to this issue that happens to be the uniformly understood.
Does anyone really believe that children and teens, or society as a whole, really will be better off with the traditional perspective under assault, being eroded and even completely abandoned?
There are those that have been taught to believe that "gender" is not binary (unlike one's "sex" which is determined by one's chromosomes). The fact is that their are two genders: Male and Female. That is absolutely binary. That's why Google + had to add a third category, "other," because it's outside that "binary" idea. The "traditional" and always understood perspective of what makes one a male or female is exactly as Rabbi Shafran puts it. For anyone to pretend they are unaware of this perspective, or that it is not "traditional," is to pretend the absurd. As Dr. Ritch C. Savin-Williams, director of the Cornell University Sex and Gender Lab put it, “These teens are fighting the idea that your equipment defines what it means for you to be a boy or girl." Your equipment do indeed define whether you are a boy or girl. That's binary, and obviously so, and to pretend otherwise is a sign of a society turning insanity into normalcy by indoctrination.
I would point out that I took postmodern literature in college and learned about these feminist ideas (when studying feminist literature) as well. I just never bought them. The fact is that there are two genders (male and female), and that is inescapable. What is happening is advocating an the idea of telling little boys and girls that they are not boys and girls, but they are only what they feel. I don't think a person is a sum total of his ridiculous emotions. Some mornings I wake up feeling like crap, that does not turn me into a turd. There are some things that are unchangeable. One of those things are that males are males, and females are females, and that males cannot be females and females cannot be males.
It is an absolutely radical agenda "worldwide" "starting at the youngest ages" to teach children that they are not boys or girls, but that they can and should "choose a pronoun." One can discuss and debate proper gender roles for many moons, but that is a wholly different issue than teaching the "youngest ages" that "sexuality" is literally meaningless and that everything has to do only "with who you feel like inside.” There are some things that are beyond the purview of society and child education, and are a sign of a society in decay, and this is clearly such a case.
Rabbi Avi Shafran stated in June 2011 that "from the perspective of the Jewish religious tradition, a person’s sexual identity is dependent on the sex he or she is born as, assuming that the person’s genitals are unambiguous." Rabbi Shafran's opinion is clearly the traditional Jewish position, but it in fact represents the wider traditional position before alternative feminist ideas were introduced. I quote Rabbi Shafran because his position represents a much wider approach to this issue that happens to be the uniformly understood.
Does anyone really believe that children and teens, or society as a whole, really will be better off with the traditional perspective under assault, being eroded and even completely abandoned?
There are those that have been taught to believe that "gender" is not binary (unlike one's "sex" which is determined by one's chromosomes). The fact is that their are two genders: Male and Female. That is absolutely binary. That's why Google + had to add a third category, "other," because it's outside that "binary" idea. The "traditional" and always understood perspective of what makes one a male or female is exactly as Rabbi Shafran puts it. For anyone to pretend they are unaware of this perspective, or that it is not "traditional," is to pretend the absurd. As Dr. Ritch C. Savin-Williams, director of the Cornell University Sex and Gender Lab put it, “These teens are fighting the idea that your equipment defines what it means for you to be a boy or girl." Your equipment do indeed define whether you are a boy or girl. That's binary, and obviously so, and to pretend otherwise is a sign of a society turning insanity into normalcy by indoctrination.
I would point out that I took postmodern literature in college and learned about these feminist ideas (when studying feminist literature) as well. I just never bought them. The fact is that there are two genders (male and female), and that is inescapable. What is happening is advocating an the idea of telling little boys and girls that they are not boys and girls, but they are only what they feel. I don't think a person is a sum total of his ridiculous emotions. Some mornings I wake up feeling like crap, that does not turn me into a turd. There are some things that are unchangeable. One of those things are that males are males, and females are females, and that males cannot be females and females cannot be males.
It is an absolutely radical agenda "worldwide" "starting at the youngest ages" to teach children that they are not boys or girls, but that they can and should "choose a pronoun." One can discuss and debate proper gender roles for many moons, but that is a wholly different issue than teaching the "youngest ages" that "sexuality" is literally meaningless and that everything has to do only "with who you feel like inside.” There are some things that are beyond the purview of society and child education, and are a sign of a society in decay, and this is clearly such a case.
11 Year Old Boy Being Subjected To Transgender Hormone Treatments In Berkeley, California
Fox News reports that a "lesbian couple in California who say their 11-year-old son Tommy who wants to be a girl named Tammy are giving their child hormone blockers that delay the onset of puberty -- so that he can have more time that he can have more time to decide if he wants to change his gender."
Unlike FoxNews.com whose headline declares this "raises questions," I think there is no questions about it, these lesbians should be thrown in jail for child abuse.
This mental illness should be treated as such, with psychological therapy or psychiatric treatment, not by implanting unnatural hormones and enabling his mental illness. Children at age 11 should not be turned into transgender guinea pigs, a responsible parent would encourage and reinforce natural development rather than shooting up a little boy with hormones to encourage the dystopia. Natural male devopment should never be treated as something to be physically blocked as if it is something to be physically treated. As Dr. McHugh ably put it, "It is a disorder of the mind. Not a disorder of the body. Dealing with it in this way is not dealing with the problem that truly exists." A couple lesbians blocking the natural hormonal growth patterns of a little boy is just plain disturbing.
Unlike FoxNews.com whose headline declares this "raises questions," I think there is no questions about it, these lesbians should be thrown in jail for child abuse.
California Penal Code 273d states: "Any person who willfully inflicts upon a child...an injury resulting in a traumatic condition is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, by a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine" (See http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/273d.html ). If I were the District Attorney I would have no qualms about filing charges against both these women, not to mention the psychotic doctors who went along with them, for violating the aforementioned provision of California's criminal code. For some reason I don't think the D.A. of Berkeley shares my sentiments.
Of course the child should be taken away by the State's protective services, that should go without saying. But in Berkeley, will that even happen? Calling this child abuse is certainly not an exaggeration on my part. I don't see how this cannot be considered, as the penal code criminalizes, the willful infliction of an "injury resulting in a traumatic condition." The child is being implanted with hormones to halt the natural development of broad shoulders, deep voice, and facial hair. He is only 11 years old. And the word "child abuse" is being used by experts in this case as well. Professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University Dr. Paul McHugh says it quite plainly: "This is child abuse. It's like performing liposuction on an anorexic child." He further points out that "it is a disorder of the mind. Not a disorder of the body. Dealing with it in this way is not dealing with the problem that truly exists." He says clearly: "I hold that interfering medically or surgically with the natural development of a young child or of young people claiming to be --quote -- 'transgendered' is a form of child abuse." It is willfully physically injuring the child in a way that clearly creates a traumatic condition. It is also, in the words of Dr. McHugh, to "cooperate with a mental illness rather than try to cure it." Dr. Manny Alvarez, senior managing health editor of FoxNews.com, also said the hormone blockers also may pose a medical risk. "I think that it’s highly inappropriate to be interfering with natural hormonal growth patterns. There are significant potential problems necessary for growth and development. Potential long-term effects can include other abnormalities of hormones, vascular complications and even potential cancer. I think that if this child – as he finishes his puberty and teenage years – decides to undergo a transgender procedure – then there are proper channels to do so. But to do it at the age of 11 -- to me -- could be potentially dangerous to the health of this child." This is the willfull infliction of child abuse, what is being done to this child is therefore nothing short of criminal. I do indeed think there is little reason not to bring charges under California Penal Code 273d.
Of course the child should be taken away by the State's protective services, that should go without saying. But in Berkeley, will that even happen? Calling this child abuse is certainly not an exaggeration on my part. I don't see how this cannot be considered, as the penal code criminalizes, the willful infliction of an "injury resulting in a traumatic condition." The child is being implanted with hormones to halt the natural development of broad shoulders, deep voice, and facial hair. He is only 11 years old. And the word "child abuse" is being used by experts in this case as well. Professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University Dr. Paul McHugh says it quite plainly: "This is child abuse. It's like performing liposuction on an anorexic child." He further points out that "it is a disorder of the mind. Not a disorder of the body. Dealing with it in this way is not dealing with the problem that truly exists." He says clearly: "I hold that interfering medically or surgically with the natural development of a young child or of young people claiming to be --quote -- 'transgendered' is a form of child abuse." It is willfully physically injuring the child in a way that clearly creates a traumatic condition. It is also, in the words of Dr. McHugh, to "cooperate with a mental illness rather than try to cure it." Dr. Manny Alvarez, senior managing health editor of FoxNews.com, also said the hormone blockers also may pose a medical risk. "I think that it’s highly inappropriate to be interfering with natural hormonal growth patterns. There are significant potential problems necessary for growth and development. Potential long-term effects can include other abnormalities of hormones, vascular complications and even potential cancer. I think that if this child – as he finishes his puberty and teenage years – decides to undergo a transgender procedure – then there are proper channels to do so. But to do it at the age of 11 -- to me -- could be potentially dangerous to the health of this child." This is the willfull infliction of child abuse, what is being done to this child is therefore nothing short of criminal. I do indeed think there is little reason not to bring charges under California Penal Code 273d.
This mental illness should be treated as such, with psychological therapy or psychiatric treatment, not by implanting unnatural hormones and enabling his mental illness. Children at age 11 should not be turned into transgender guinea pigs, a responsible parent would encourage and reinforce natural development rather than shooting up a little boy with hormones to encourage the dystopia. Natural male devopment should never be treated as something to be physically blocked as if it is something to be physically treated. As Dr. McHugh ably put it, "It is a disorder of the mind. Not a disorder of the body. Dealing with it in this way is not dealing with the problem that truly exists." A couple lesbians blocking the natural hormonal growth patterns of a little boy is just plain disturbing.
50% Support Legalizing Marijuana For First Time
Gallup reports:
A record-high 50% of Americans now say the use of marijuana should be made legal, up from 46% last year. Forty-six percent say marijuana use should remain illegal…
When Gallup first asked about legalizing marijuana, in 1969, 12% of Americans favored it, while 84% were opposed. Support remained in the mid-20s in Gallup measures from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, but has crept up since, passing 30% in 2000 and 40% in 2009 before reaching the 50% level in this year’s Oct. 6-9 annual Crime survey…
Support for legalizing marijuana is directly and inversely proportional to age, ranging from 62% approval among those 18 to 29 down to 31% among those 65 and older. Liberals are twice as likely as conservatives to favor legalizing marijuana. And Democrats and independents are more likely to be in favor than are Republicans.