Comparing and contrasting immigration and assimilation in the Middle East

Let me preface this by saying that I have a super-smart, really well-informed cousin.  He’s the one who used to be a prison chaplain and, based upon that experience, came up with a profound insight that I use over and over (most recently regarding the terrible beheading murder in Oklahoma):

It is not a contradiction to be a Muslim and a murderer, even a mass murderer. That is one reason why criminals “convert” to Islam in prison. They don’t convert at all; they similarly [sic] remain the angry judgmental vicious beings they always have been. They simply add “religious” diatribes to their personal invective. Islam does not inspire a crisis of conscience, just inspirations to outrage.

My cousin was brilliant all over again this morning, when I posted on my Facebook page an image showing that, while everyone focuses on the small number of Palestinians who refused to assimilate into Israel, the world ignores the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were ethnically cleansed from Arab and Muslim nations from 1948 onward:

The real displaced people of the Middle East

Here’s my cousin’s incredibly erudite, off-the-cuff comment about immigration and assimilation in the Middle East:

The main difference between Israel and the Arabs is a question of humanity toward refugees. Israel was in dire poverty in the era of Mizrachi (i.e., Sephardic immigration from 1948-57). No UN relief money was given to Israel to assimilate 900,000 Mizrachi refugees, who arrived with no money, and no possessions, but with plenty of medical problems (especially eye infections).

The existing Ashkenazi leadership in Israel was horrified by the Mizrachi refugees’ medical problems, lack of language skills( a specially bad problem with Yemenite refugees), and domestic violence. Impoverished Israel first settled the Mizrachi refugees in tent camps, then in hastily constructed settlements on the frontiers.

Within three generations, the results of assimilation are overwhelmingly obvious. Israeli is a homogeneous country, bound by a single Israeli culture and is one of the most educationally and economically successfully nations in the world.

The exact reverse happened with the Palestinians. They have been afforded UNRWA refugee status for 66 years. This contrasts with the UN’s behavior to all other refugees after WWII, who were only given refugee status for 5 years. The Arabs’ recurrent wars against Israel are partially facilitated by UNRWA, especially insofar as it provides safe houses for terrorists and their weapons and produces “educational” curriculum that features genocidal, virulent hatred of Jews.

The Palestinian refugees, rather than making their way to a new, safe land, retreated 10 to 20 miles at most from the homes they abandoned. This contrasts with the thousands of miles that the Mizrachi Jews had to traverse to find safety.

The Arabs have waged an anti-Israel propaganda war based upon the continued existence of these UNRWA supported Palestinian “refugees.” Because of their peculiar status, one that encourages them to think of themselves as perpetual victims and displaced people, the Palestinians have been their own worst enemy. A good example is the fact that Kuwait expelled 400,000 Palestinians after Yassir Arafat openly supported Saddam Hussein’s war on Kuwait. (An act that provides that another good example of Arab/Muslim support for ethnic cleansing!)

[VIDEO] The more people who see Elbert Guillory’s latest video, the better

Elbert GuilloryI’ve been a fan of Elbert Guillory since May 2013, when he was still a Democrat. Given how much I liked him, I was not surprised when he announced that he was leaving the Democrat party.

Guillory’s explanation for his decision to switch party affiliations ought to be seen by every black person — heck, by every person — in America. Because Guillory’s views about politics, about the relationship between citizens and government, and about the crushing burden the welfare state has placed on blacks are so beautifully developed, I was delighted to learn that he’d formed a PAC: Free At Last

Acting through his PAC, Guillory has just released a new video attacking Mary Landrieu. This, however, is not an ordinary political attack ad. Instead, Guillory asks Louisiana blacks the same question Reagan asked Americans: “Are you better off now?” In 1980, Americans, after looking  back at four years of Jimmy Carter, answered “no.” Guillory asks Louisiana’s blacks to look back at eighteen years of Mary Landrieu and answer “no” too.

The only problem I can see with Guillory’s most recent video is one of dissemination. I have no idea whether Free At Last has developed a sufficiently good communications network to get this video in front of those black voters who, like sheep, keep sending a Democrat to Congress, no matter that their lives degrade, as she lives ever higher on the hog.  This video will certainly appeal to and be seen by those blacks who have already recognized that the Democrat party thrives only when blacks wither, but will it be seen by the withering blacks?

All we can ask is that as many people as possible share this video through social media. The six degrees of separation that is all social media might just be enough to put Guillory’s words in front of those who need to hear them most: American blacks suffering under the jack-booted rule of Democrat overseers who keep them in servitude so as to harvest their votes.

Hat tip: American Thinker

Help support an effort to undermine the hard-Left “comics” who dominate the MSM

I got an email from the Media Research Center that I’d like to pass on to you.  I don’t usually pass these things on, but this harmonizes closely with what my sister-in-law and I have been saying for years:  Conservatives need to entertained people into supporting conservative values, just as Leftists successfully entertained people into supporting Leftist values.  (Ben Shapiro ably describes how this has worked in television from the 1960s through to the present day.)

Media Research </p><br />
<p>Center. America's Media Watchdog
Dear Supporter,,

I want to thank you for supporting the Media Research Center and our mission of exposing and neutralizing liberal bias in the so-called “news” media. 

But liberal bias also runs unchecked and unbalanced in the ENTERTAINMENT media. 

Specifically, in the world of TV comedy and satire.

I am asking all our supporters to invest in the MRC’s efforts to shatter the left’s monopoly on the entertainment media.

Humor and satire are integral to American popular culture. But all the late night comedians and their TV shows satirize our culture exclusively from the left!  

Comedians Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, David Letterman, Jimmy Fallon, Craig Ferguson, Jimmy Kimmel, and the whole crew of SaturdayNight Live advance a leftist agenda under the guise of comedy and brainwash America’s young people each and every dayIs it any wonder that the youth of America are turning into leftist Obama zombies? 

And David Letterman’s replacement next year – Stephen Colbert –- is even more liberal than Dave! He is a diehard, hardcore leftist activist.  This left-wing comedy/satire monopoly must be challenged and dismantled!

Mockery and ridicule are common and effective ways of marginalizing political opponents, and the left is great at it.  But liberals absolutely hate being mocked. They love to ridicule and deride people who think differently from them but they can’t stand it when they are the target.

When we started NewsBusted, we wanted to change that by creating at least one comedy show where socialism isn’t worshiped and where American values aren’t derided.

NewsBusted is the one comedy show where joke writers aren’t afraid to serve up the ridicule that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi so richly deserve.

We have a specific goal for 2015 – to raise enough money to upgrade all aspects of the audio and video production of NewsBusted… it’s time for a major, high tech upgrade—in High Definition!

Quality television audio & video production doesn’t come cheap. For nearly seven years, our production team has been using the SAME standard definition camera, the SAME microphones, the SAME lighting system, the SAME editing bay, the SAME graphics package, and the SAME sound mixing board… NewsBusted is long overdue for a high tech upgrade and 2015 is the year to do it!

I need you to donate today so that we can start producing better sounding and better looking episodes of NewsBusted – in high definition!We need your generous contribution to keep the laughs coming!

NewsBusted is produced by the Media Research Center (an IRS-certified 501(c)(3) non-profit) which means that your donation will be fully tax-deductible under the law.

To help upgrade NewsBusted, please click here where you can donate via our secure form.

I hope I can count on your support as we challenge leftist orthodoxy in the world of comedy and satire.

Sincerely,


L. Brent Bozell III
Founder and President
Media Research Center

 

The life and death importance of calling things by their proper names

1947 Currer and Ives print of Adam naming the animalsMost people, when they think of Genesis, remember that God created everything, told Adam and Eve to leave the tree of knowledge and, when they didn’t, kicked them out of Eden.  What few remember is Genesis’s insistent focus on the importance of naming things.  In the first chapter, God no sooner creates something, than he gives it its rightful name (emphasis mine):

  1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
  2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
  3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
  4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
  5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
  6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
  7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
  8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
  9. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
  10. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

And so it goes, with God systematically creating the world and naming it as he went.

In the second chapter of Genesis, God designates to Adam the primary task of assigning the proper name to each of God’s creations (emphasis mine):

  1. And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
  2. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
  3. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
  4. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
  5. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
  6. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

What Genesis establishes is that identifying things is essential to understanding their function.  Only when Adam had named the animals, properly classifying them as any modern-day scientist would, did he and God determine that Adam had no mate.  And once God created that mate for Adam, Adam again had to give her species a name, one that he chose in relationship to his own species:  “she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

Leftists are fully alive to the importance of naming things.  For example, when Obama came into office, “terrorism” was out; “man-caused disaster” was in.  Man-caused or not, “disaster” has such a such a pleasantly accidental connotation.  You have your earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes on the one hand, and on the other hand you have your men who cause disasters.  That these men happen to be devotees of a cult committed to spreading violence and death wherever it goes is as incidental as the precise wind speed during a hurricane or the decimal valuations on the Richter scale separating one big quake from another.

And yes, Bush created the abstract “War on Terror” designation rather than the more accurate War on Radical Islamists, but at least he was acknowledging that those pesky man-causers were actually trying to instill terror.  It was the Obama administration that found even that definition too raw and real.

Obama on Wheel of fortune

ISIS’s rise has given Obama plenty of opportunities to try to define away problems.  Having unsuccessfully described the nascent ISIS army as a “JV team,” Obama decided to define ISIS right out of Islam.  ISIS he opined, is un-Islamic, because a good God wouldn’t countenance its appalling violence.

Well, maybe a good God wouldn’t countenance appalling violence, but it’s a historical reality that a certain prophet would.  Mohamed was very clear when it came to demanding that each good Muslim wage war to spread Islam, behead non-believers, and enslave those who were not beheaded (with sex-slavery being the chosen outcome for surviving women).

Intriguingly, the Qur’an, which is normally a very straightforward book when it comes to describing a binary world of peace under Islam and war as a precursor to Islam, also does a little fudging with labels itself.  For years I’ve seen Muslim-apologists claim that the Qur’an, at 5:32, explicitly disavows violence.  For example, this poster crops up periodically:

Mohammad on killing innocent human beings

It doesn’t seem to occur to any of the apologists that other chapters and verses in the Qur’an, with their litany of punitive acts that must be committed against Mohamed’s many enemies, make it plain that non-believers, especially Jews, are not innocents.  Likewise, apostate Muslims aren’t innocents.  And of course, Christians and Hindus aren’t innocents.  Oh, and devout Muslims who practice the “correct” form of Islam, but somehow run afoul of Mohamed’s dictates, even if they do so unintentionally or through ignorance, are also not innocents.

Indeed, once one gets down to it, it’s clear that the only “innocents” among us are those who practice the “correct” version of Islam, and who do so without ever committing an error — and really, there’s just no reason to kill them in the first place according to the Qur’an.  Let’s just say that, if I were the lawyer advising Mohamed regarding all the many acts of violence, rapine, and murder that he demands of his followers, I would recommend that he insert just such a meaningless paragraph as an “out” should he ever be called upon to defend this blood-thirstiness.

But getting back to things here in America….

Jonah Goldberg is so disturbed by the “naming” problem that’s infected the early 21st century that he’s penning an entire book on the degradation of names for very important things under Obama’s watch.  Taking a page out of Confucius, Goldberg is working on the “rectification of names.”  According to him, “society goes ass-over-teakettle (to borrow a phrase from the academic literature) when names no longer describe the things they are assigned to.”  Exactly.

And now I’ll explain to you what got me all heated up about this “naming” thing.  It may surprise what did not excite my ire today.  Today, I’m not upset that our political class, from the White House down to the police department in Oklahoma City, refuses to admit that, even if a killer is acting alone, when that killer shouts “Allahu Akbar” or beheads people or openly dedicates his life to jihad, while his violence may occur in the workplace, we are not seeing “workplace violence.”  We are, instead, seeing a pernicious type of Islamic violence that needs to be named, shamed, and destroyed.

Nope, what worked me up was something entirely different.  Yesterday I spoke with a physician who was saying that his health care group is running into very specific problems when treating people who have had sex change operations.  It all goes back to the computer systems that Obamacare insists all doctors and hospitals have.

At least for this doctor’s health care group, when it comes to assigning a person’s sex in the health center’s computer system, the health center’s policy, after a sex change operation (whether or not the health center performed that operation), is to assign to the person that person’s “preferred” sex.  What this means is that, if Jane Smith comes to the hospital, has her breasts sliced off, has excess flesh shaped into a simulacrum of a penis and testicle sac, and begins taking hormones to coarsen skin, create facial hair, and develop male-pattern baldness, the fact that Jane now identifies herself as John Smith means that the health center must change her sex in the computer system from “female” to “male.”

The problem is that, for all the superficial changes Jane went through to become John, the biological reality is that she’s still Jane — she has a uterus and ovaries (unless she joined a hysterectomy with the rest of her surgery).  That biological reality explains how you can end up with flesh-and-blood oxymorons such as a “pregnant man”:

Pregnant man

At the hospital level, the political correctness of letting patients identify with their cosmetic sex, as opposed to their birth sex, means that they don’t get treated for diseases unique to the sex embedded in their DNA (XX or XY).  This problem is different from things such as the male-to-female transgender who, once he takes female hormones, becomes prone to breast cancer. Instead, this problem lies with core matters of self-identification versus real identification — people aren’t getting the health care their DNA demands.

Our hypothetical “John Smith,” for example, isn’t going to get annual notices that “he” needs to get a pap smear. If John doesn’t go to an OB/GYN, because John is a “man,” John’s at higher risk of uterine and ovarian cancer — both of which are treatable if caught early, and both of which are expensive and, sadly, fatal if caught late.  Likewise, if John has a friend who once was Paul, but is now Paulina, when Paulina goes to the doctor, there’s a good chance “she” won’t be getting her prostate checked nor will she be getting appropriate checks for heart disease. Both John and Pauline are at greater risk of entirely preventable problems because they have demanded that the hospital ignore what’s going on beneath their cosmetically- and hormonally-altered appearance.

Here’s where I stand on the matter should I ever meet John Smith:  In all social settings, I will be completely willing to acknowledge his chosen identification as a male. That will probably be true too in most work situations. But I will not ever allow myself to believe that he’s actually male. He is pretending. If it makes him happy, I’m good with it. But I won’t delude myself that it means that I should enlist him in the military and pretend that he is, in all respects, a male. Likewise, when I meet Paulina, I’ll call her “Ms” if she likes, but I won’t allow her to get into a Mixed Martial Artist cage with me in the women’s class.

Moreover, at home, I’m not going to tell my children that a transgender person has magically been transformed into the sex of his or her choice. What I will do, though, is tell them that, whenever possiblethey should accord that person respect, they should never bully that person or discriminate against that person, and they should use the pronouns and honorifics that the person prefers to have applied to himself or herself. And that’s it. Naming things matters and, until we acknowledge what something really is, rather than what we want it to be, we will be, as Goldberg says, a society that is “ass-over-teakettle.”

All gender bathroom

The Bookworm Beat (9/30/14) — Illustrated edition, and Open Thread

Blogging is a challenge today, because the high-speed internet for the whole neighborhood has a problem. Comcast is working on the problem, and believes it will fix everything by 6 p.m. For now, though, the internet comes and goes quite randomly, so I’ll try to squeeze in something quick while I can. Posters seems quick:

Marine negotiating warning

Obama lacks intelligence

Catch 22 with Islamic extremists

Instant gratification race

Your respectable gun carrying customer

Liberal logic on abortions

Obama's priorities re terrorists and citizens

If only the duck guys were in charge of security

No spending problem

Blame the Republicans

Fair taxes in America

Michelle and Obama voluntarily surrendered their law licenses

West on Blacks welfare and slavery

Andrew Tahmooressi unable to get into America from Mexico

Obama's rules of engagement

D'Souza v Ayers

ISIS wants a Bergdahl deal

If you teach a liberal how to fish

Many thanks to Caped Crusader and Sadie, who sent me all of these wonderful posters.

A delight from Dancing With The Stars

Those of you who don’t watch Dancing With The Stars might not know this, but one of the contestants is 17-year-old Sadie Robertson, of the Duck Dynasty family.  She is an absolute delight as a dancer.  Although she’s never danced before, she turns out to be a natural, from the tips of her fingers to her always well-placed toes.  Although the judges didn’t agree, I thought she turned in the best performance last night:

And I was sad to see ” target=”_blank”>Randy Couture get sent home. I knew he wasn’t going to last, because he’s not a good dancer, but there was something appealing about him. In addition to his good looks, I like that he served his country for six years (retiring with the rank of sergeant) and that he’s a kick-ass fighter.

[VIDEO] Further thoughts about pork-infused ammunition in our latest war

Jihawg AmmoYesterday, I asked whether it’s time for us to incorporate some pork into America’s bullets and bombs (or at least tell the world that we’re doing so), because doing so lets Islamic fanatics know that, if they die fighting Americans, they’ll be too impure to ascend to the Islamic brothel in the sky. This plan has two virtues:

  1. To the extent it deters true Muslims from fighting, it saves Muslim lives. Those who disapprove of this idea, therefore, want more dead Muslims and are therefore manifest Islamophobes.
  2. Because Obama has assured us that ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, al Shabaab, Khorosan, and all other violent totalitarian groups that claim to be Islamic are not, in fact, authentically Muslim, pork-infused ammunition is a great way to separate wheat from chaff. The real Muslims among these groups will flee the pork weapons, while the fake Muslims, who are apparently in the fight only for the joy of killing, will remain as legitimate military targets.

And to those who say pork and weapons do not mix, Sadie has reminded me that, just 70 years ago, they were an inseparable pair:

The Bookworm Beat (9/29/14) — The unpacked portmanteau edition, and Open Thread

Woman writingI’ve got a lot of open tabs with all sorts of random, but useful and interesting, information. Here goes….

Whither Eric Holder?

The Watcher’s Council has a new forum up, this one examining Eric Holder’s resignation and his future plans. I don’t think I’m giving too much away if I say that none of the forum participants believe Holder retired because he needed a break from the job.

Is it real or is it a satire?

When a friend sent me this link about Obama’s plans regarding ISIL, it took me a few seconds to decide whether it was real or satire. Now it’s your turn to spend a few seconds answering that question for yourself.

Men without women are dangerous

For years I’ve been harping away on what a very wise friend told me, which is that Islam’s fundamental quarrel with the West is about women: Islam wants to control women, and the West refuses to get with the program. Roger Scruton adds another dimension to the problem Islam has with women, which is that the women are being locked away from the young men who need them most. Between the whole burqa/locking up thing, and the polygamy that gives old men lots of young women, while leaving young men with nothing, the Muslim world has produced a huge population of young men with an enormous amount of unresolved sexual tension.  Combine this tension with the promise of its full resolution in the afterlife provided that you first kill non-Muslims, and you’ve created a whole lot of nascent murderers.

Why is this recovery different from all other recoveries?

It’s different because Obama’s crony capitalism has ensured that any benefits derived from the recovery have gone primarily to the rich people encircling his White House throne.

The Leftist dream about Common Core

The Leftists are slowly letting the cat out of the bag. It’s not that they believe that Common Core will educate children better; it’s that they believe that it will educate them equally. A lot of parents, though, are getting very worried that Common Core will leave children all equally uneducated.

By the way, when I watched the video at the link, I thought of this poster that I culled long ago from a Leftist Facebook friend:

Equality and Justice

A wonderful paragraph from Jonah Goldberg’s post about the endless feminist sense of grievance

Goldberg’s whole post is worth reading, insofar as it seeks to explain why American feminists, despite succeeding beyond any woman’s wildest dreams at any previous time in history, still complain bitterly about their victimization. I especially liked the following paragraph, though, about the way in which feminists discount objective facts merely because men state them:

Maybe it’s true that pointing out that women are doing much better today according to myriad measures somehow solidifies my rank in the cult of Priapus, but I’m at a loss to figure out how. And, even if it did, even if pointing out there is no rape epidemic on college campuses earned me an extra round of martinis at the men’s club with Mr. Monopoly and the Koch brothers, I cannot for the life of me see how that makes the facts any less factual. If I slapped my wife’s name on my column instead of my own, would the facts therein suddenly be more true? (“Hey don’t use ‘slap’ and ‘wife’ in the same sentence or they’ll compare you to Ray Rice.” — The Couch)

Note to Jonah: Logic is also part of the male hegemonic structure aimed at excluding women from power.

Matthew Continetti lets loose against journalists for Hillary

Continetti unleashes a wonderful stem-winder against a journalist class that can report no wrong when it comes to Hillary Clinton. This will give you a taste of his tour de force:

I am not entirely without sympathy. Mainstream journalists are under pressures that we are not. They have to pretend for example that David Brock is a serious person. They are implicated in the liberal Democratic project through family or sympathy or ambition. They have to take angry calls from the White House and congressional Democrats and candidates. One of Alana Goodman’s scoops involved a meeting at the D.C. bureau of the New York Times at which Hillary Clinton’s top lieutenants complained about the paper’s coverage of their boss, saying it was too intrusive and critical and that Clinton is not a public figure but an expectant grandmother. Leave Hillary alone, she’s under a lot of stress right now, she still has to wear those glasses at night, we have long memories, all she wants to do is swim, she hasn’t made up her mind about 2016, she’s putting the finishing touches on her book, dinner last Saturday was a lot of fun we should do it again sometime, she’s really a private person and doesn’t like all of this attention, why do you have to be so mean to her, I’m not going to write that recommendation letter for Sidwell Friends, Chelsea’s afraid the bad press may affect the baby, yes I’ll be at Hilary Rosen’s on Friday, we are totally uninteresting and unaffected and blameless and prosaic and apolitical but cross us and we’ll cut your f—ing knees off . . . Could you have been at that meeting and not laughed?

Bill Maher again speaks out on Islam: “Liberal western culture is not just different; it’s better.”

Ignore the foul language and ignore the generalized attacks on Christians and Christianity. Instead, appreciate the fact that a famous media figure who openly hates all religions is willing to speak out and say that radical Islam is not like all the other religions he disrespects: it’s much, much worse because of its violent intolerance and its yearning for total conquest. I’m no Maher fan, but credit must be given where credit is due: He’s brave, since he puts his life at risk by saying these things; he’s willing to take on Obama’s religious pronouncements; he recognizes the fundamental virtue of Free Speech in America; and he refuses to deal in moral relativism. Good, very good, for him!