Sad, but funny!
America
All posts tagged America
United lost the plot years ago. We have flown United several times across the Pacific and found the air hostesses to be rude and service inadequate. One United flight we took some years ago from Melbourne to the USA United neglected to put the food on the plane. Yes, we traveled all the way from Australia to the USA with nothing to eat!
A long time ago I found that one can be mistreated almost anywhere but that mistreatment doesn’t last as long as flying with United from Australia to the USA. Now, if the price between United and another airline is only a few hundred dollars we always choose the other! If United keeps this up it will go the way of other defunct airlines.
Dr. Don Boys is right when he writes ‘Damascus is the world’s oldest city, more than 6,000 years old, and it will be destroyed to the point of being a “ruinous heap.” Unattended sheep will wander in the streets with no one to shepherd them. Isa. 17:1 declares, “The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.” We may have been watching that passage become reality as war has raged in Damascus and other Syrian cities.
Now we see heart-wrenching videos of babies, children, and innocent men and women dead from a chemical attack on the northern city of Khan Sheikhoun that would make a stone cry. It is alleged that Assad, the dastardly, devious dictator of Damascus dropped the deadly gas, but no one has proved that and Syrian officials have vehemently denied responsibility. The Local Coordination Committee, a monitoring group, said the airstrike was carried out by Russia–a supporter of Assad.
Frankly, it doesn’t make any sense for Putin to order such an attack. He has nothing to gain and much to lose by such irresponsible violence. Same with Assad, after all, he seems to be winning in the very vicious civil war. Could the chemical attack be a false flag operation whereby rebel terrorists attacked their own people to place blame upon Assad and/or Russia?
The conflict is not between two groups but involves Assad’s forces fighting a rebel group consisting of hundreds of groups numbering about 100,000 fighters. Then ISIS got involved and it’s now at least a three-way fight. There are no “good guys.” Now, both Assad’s forces and the rebels are fighting a separate battle against ISIS at the same time. It’s a major mess in the Middle East.
President Trump authorized an air strike against the Assad regime Thursday night in retaliation of the chemical attack; however, some Americans think he may have acted without all relevant facts. Trump’s attack upon Syria was a benefit to ISIS terrorists! Something’s wrong here because ISIS is a far greater threat to the U.S. than is Syria.
Trump must remember that his first priority is protecting the U.S.; however, the gas attack, while horrendous, was no threat to Americans. At least his response sent a needed message to the world: the U.S. will respond when U.S. officials deem it essential–but was it essential?
Are only Americans outraged about innocent deaths to the extent of doing something about it? Other national leaders are acting as cheerleaders but not getting “into the game.”
Meanwhile, an assortment of U.S. politicians from across the political spectrum has joined in beating the war drums. But then, older politicians have always managed to find the guts to send younger men to fight their wars.
Are we to do what others are responsible to do? Isn’t the United Nations supposed to keep the peace, protect the innocent, and bring the bad guys to justice? Alternatively, doesn’t the pecking order demand that surrounding Muslim nations bring the dictator to justice? Of course, other Muslim leaders have bloody hands also. Does any sane person believe that Assad will be replaced by a devotee of peace, justice, and freedom after he is greeted by his 72 virgins in Paradise?
Events are taking place that I predict will escalate the war, eliminate the Christians, exclude any voice of reason, and engage Israel in constant confrontations. Assad is not a good guy but he is preferable to the alternative. He is a known entity and he has not been shelling Jews on the Golan Heights. A new Syrian strongman might break the treaty and the shelling of Israel could again become a daily event as in the past.
Will we see Damascus totally destroyed? What a tragedy to see this historical and biblical city in total ruins! Will the UN get involved and escalate the disturbance into a catastrophic event or will they help provide peace, protection, and prosperity? We may soon know the answer.
As ruthless a dictator as his father was, President Bashar al-Assad should be called Bashar the Butcher. While all people of good will want to see him assume room temperature, it is not wise for the U.S. to assume the role of paladin of the world. Those rebels in Syria without a doubt are Muslim extremists. Let them fight their own battles. The choice between the two sides is not a choice between good and evil but between much evil and more evil.
The U.S. does not have a horse in this race, but we do abhor the killing of innocent people. While Assad is a vicious dictator, he has permitted Christians to practice their faith and has kept relative peace until recent years. If Assad goes, the Christians will be totally destroyed in Syria. If he is deposed, Muslim fanatics will fill his chair. Most reasonable people prefer a sensitive, peaceful conservative but in the real world that is not going to happen.
The Syrian opposition is a mixture of fanatics, freedom lovers, and criminal opportunists. Incredibly, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for supporting them with “humanitarian aid.” We have seen this movie before. Non-thinkers praised the uprisings in Libya, Sudan, Bahrain, etc., and now we realize that we got much more than we wanted. Radical Muslims have been enabled and are now in control. Sharia law will be forced on the people in all Muslim-dominated nations. Turkey is going in that direction as I write.
Russia, China, and Iran are backing Syria’s dictator while Saudi Arabia is opposed to him and supports a new government in Syria, hoping that it will not be as friendly to Iran.
When former Saudi King Abdul-Aziz ibn Saud was on his deathbed, he warned his sons “to keep your eye on Syria” since anything good for Syria is considered bad for Saudi. While both Syria and Saudi Arabia are Muslim, the Saudis are of the Sunni fanatical Wahhabi sect plus their country is the location of Mecca (birthplace of Mohammed) and Medina. There are no churches of any kind in Saudi Arabia and even other Muslim sects such as the Shiites are without mosques in most major areas!
Syria is more secular than Saudi Arabia but Sunni Muslims are the majority religious group in both countries. There are about two million citizens in Damascus and 85% are Sunni Muslims that are served by about 2,000 mosques in the city. The Grand Mosque of Damascus is one of the largest, oldest, and holiest sites for Muslims.
Fanatical, committed Muslims are dangerous, devious, and deceitful people and we are fools to waltz into the crossfire. The free world should permit these countries to work out their own differences, remove their own totalitarian leaders, and worship however they choose. The U.S. can cheer the good guys (better guys) but we don’t have the money, personnel, or authority to get involved.
Damascus will be destroyed and while that will be a major disaster, it is more preferable than Dallas, Denver, or Detroit being destroyed. And don’t be deceived, if those on the streets of Damascus have their way, it will be an American city that will be a “ruinous heap.”
President Trump should stay out of Syria. Let “peaceful” Muslims take care of Assad and hang him after a public trial for using chemical gas. If Damascus is to be destroyed, let Muslims do it!
No one elected America as the world’s moral and humanitarian watchdog.’ http://donboys.cstnews.com/damascus-will-be-destroyed-but-let-muslims-do-it
What is President Trump thinking?!
- ‘The decision to select Army Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond “H.R.” McMaster to replace retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as national security advisor is setting into motion a cascade of other personnel decisions that, far from draining the swamp, appear to be perpetuating it.
- Trump has decided to retain Yael Lempert, a controversial NSC staffer from the
Obama administration. Analyst Lee Smith reported that, according to a former official in the Clinton administration, Lempert “is considered one of the harshest critics of Israel on the foreign policy far left.” - Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, who served as the NSC’s Iran director during the Obama administration, is now in charge of policy planning for Iran and the Persian Gulf at
the Trump State Department. Nowrouzzadeh, whose main task at Obama’s NSC was to help broker the Iran Nuclear Deal, is a former employee of the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), a lobbying group widely believed to be a front group for the Islamic dictatorship in Iran. - “The people who are handling key elements of those conflicts now are the same people who handled those areas under Obama, despite the results of the last election. No wonder the results look equally awful.” — Lee Smith, Middle East analyst.’https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10158/white-house-islam-isis-israel-iran
‘Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, the Iran director for former President Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), has burrowed into the government under President Trump. She’s now in charge of Iran and the Persian Gulf region on the policy planning staff at the State Department. To make matters worse, Nowrouzzadeh is a former employee of the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), a non-profit that is accused of being a lobbying group for the Iranian regime. NIAC’s current president, Trita Parsi, has long held close relationships with top officials in the Tehran dictatorship. In February, a group of over 100 prominent Iranian dissidents called for Congress to investigate NIAC’s ties to the Iranian regime.’ https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/iran-deal-architect-is-now-running-tehran-policy-at-the-state-department
Is Trump a true conservative and someone else is making some of these decisions or is he showing his true colors?
In Australia the left leaning ABC’s ‘…Q&A panellists launched into an emotive discussion around freedom of speech, largely powered by the absence of controversial anti-Islamic activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali who was due to appear as a member of Monday night’s panel.
While the exact “security concerns”, among other reasons, that led to Ms Hirsi Ali’s 
cancelled Australian tour remain unconfirmed, Federal Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg blamed it on the need to reform Section 18C to “protect and promote freedom of speech”.
“It is very regrettable people have sought to prevent her coming to Australia because they see her as the enemy of tolerance. I see her as an enemy of intolerance,” Mr Frydenberg said.
“Personally I don’t agree with everything that she has said about Islam but … she sends a very powerful message as well about how secular laws should be above Sharia law.
“My view is she would have received a lot of support here in Australia for airing what are somewhat controversial views. And she should be allowed to speak her mind and people who disagree with her should be able to challenge that. That’s the point of a free country like Australia.”
But Q&A host Tony Jones suggested the security concerns were exaggerated, citing a petition which expressed “disappointment” in response to Ms Hirsi Ali’s Australian tour that attracted fewer than 400 signatories.
Mr Frydenberg said he was “shocked” that the petition had garnered the support of psychologists, doctors, lawyers and community activists; all in agreement that she should not visit Australia and speak her mind.
Shadow Human Rights Minister Linda Burney said she found Mr Frydenberg’s comments “ironic”.
“It seems a little ironic that the party that was arguing against freedom of speech would propose it here tonight,” she said.
The Australian editor-at-large Paul Kelly agreed Ms Hirsi Ali’s absence was “a great shame”.
“I do think that the overwhelming majority of the Australian people would have been prepared to welcome her to this country. I am disturbed at the fact we have a petition signed by about 400 people, some of them quite prominent, suggesting that she should not come to this country.
“I think this is contrary to the fundamental values of Australian democracy.
“This is a courageous and inspiring woman. Now I don’t agree with all her positions, but she certainly raised fundamental questions about Islam which we should be prepared to debate as a society, debate and confront frankly.”
Former Danish prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt said freedom of speech should have no limits.
“Of course she should have the right to come to Australia to put her points of view across,” she said.
“This is what democracy is all about.”
While Nobel Peace Prize winner and social entrepreneur Muhammad Yunus said he agreed that everyone had the right to speak freely, he moved that there should be limitation when opinions were reduced to insults.
“You can come up with your opinion about certain aspects of Islam and so on. But that should not go into a level of inciting people, and kind of bringing intolerance into the discussion. The key thing is intolerance … You do it in a friendly way.
“Freedom of speech doesn’t give you the licence to insult somebody, cut down the respect and the feelings of other people.”
Ms Thorning-Schmidt argued that if freedom of speech was limited, it could silence people trying to bring about important social change.
“When women were fighting for their rights in the ’60s and ’70s, I think a lots of people thought they had a very insulting tone to some of the men they were fighting against,” she said.
“I think you have to use a language — not an insulting language if you can avoid it — but you can’t limit freedom of speech. But you can be responsible for how you use it … That’s what is lacking in the world.”’ http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/04/03/ayaan-hirsi-alis-absence-freedom-speech/?utm_source=Responsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170404_TND
Is Ayaan Ali anti-Islam as much as she is pro-free speech and women’s rights? Australia has a very small percentage of Muslims but they carry a lot of clout and therefore people such as Ali and Gert Wilder receive death threats and much opposition when they come to Australia. So much for freedom of speech!
The following is thought provoking so some may find it hard to read just as they find thinking hard!
‘The United States has become a cesspool as it relates to the covering of women. However, the nakedness of women seems also to be a symbol of Americanism today as much as apple pie, kind of like the following, “Our women take their clothes off, and we’re proud of it.” As this relates to Islam, we’re not like those nasty Moslem countries that force their women to cover themselves either with the burqa or the hijab. The hijab brings an American gag reflex and the burqa induces all out vomiting. On the other hand, flag waving and the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue now parallel one another. The patriotism of this goes back to wartime pinups of women, I guess, to motivate these men to sacrifice themselves or at least to provide distraction from their fears or anxieties.
The hijab and burqa are distinguishing garments in Islam. They reflect Moslem teaching on 
modesty for women. They don’t have identical rules for men, because they distinguish between men and women. Is this good? It’s not wrong for sure. You could argue from the Bible that it is right to do so.
As I think about what scripture says about female dress, the following is how I see these two articles of clothing. One, the Bible doesn’t require the hijab or the burqa. Two, the Bible doesn’t say that a woman would be 
superior or a better person or more moral because she wore a hijab or a burqa. Three, the Bible doesn’t forbid the hijab or the burqa. Four, there are similar principles in the Bible for the hijab or the burqa as there are in Islam. Five, the biblical principles themselves don’t require a hijab or burqa, but they do require something for women similar to the hijab or burqa.
I’m saying here that the hijab or burqa are not a good argument against Islam by Americans, either liberal or conservative. Neither of these are forbidden in the United States. Women can wear them if they want. Men
can’t force women to wear them in the United States. However, in European countries, those bastions of freedom and expression, that’s what they want to outlaw. They don’t want the burqa or the burqini, the Moslem beachwear.
Permit me to digress for a moment. I don’t like the burqa as apparel. It reflects a perverted belief and culture. As a result, I attach the hijab to the burqa, because they both come from the same source. I get a feeling of repulsion, looking at them, because I know from which they come. If I can separate myself from the religious aspect, the hijab can look nice, feminine and modest. As I tamp down the religious repulsion, as an item, I see it in a good way, because of the distinguishing nature of it. The hijab looks attractive to me when I get past what I see it represent. On the other hand, the burqa looks like something Cousin It would wear in the Addams Family. It would look stylish maybe on a weeble. I’m not for a hazmat suit as regular apparel.
I don’t think that Muslim covering on women should enter the argument against Islam. Why is it used? There’s nothing wrong with it. You shouldn’t use what’s not wrong as an argument. It presents a weak argument. There is something right about it’s underlying philosophy, distinction and modesty. I believe it is used as an argument because it’s emotional. Women will feel emotional about it. Men want to look at women’s bodies, so it works for them too. If the burqa took off as a fashion, men wouldn’t see anything except in the bedroom, and they don’t want to wait for that.
The burqa argument also works in the matter of men and women’s roles. What makes America great is that our women are free and equal to men — sure, after 1920. Before that, women couldn’t vote. Read the federalist and anti-federalist papers. Women’s vote didn’t come up once in those books. It wasn’t even up for debate. Big laughter from Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton on the woman’s vote. Are. you. kidding. me?
The cultural degradation of America follows a trajectory that matches the dress of women. The more they dress like men and the more they take their clothes off, the more that things fall apart. We’re not better off from those activities. This is the slouch or slide toward Gomorrah.
Masculine and immodest dress on women are not better for intimacy. They are not better for solid marriages. They are not better for family cohesiveness. They are not better for family solidity. They are not better for role accomplishment. They are not better for protection for women from all sorts of crimes. Women are not better off because they can dress like men and take more clothes off.
People feel more American for opposing the burqa and allowing for the shredding fad, allowing for big rips in clothing to see through. Lingerie used to be bedroom wear alone, and now it is a regular feature of outer wear. If we replaced all of the masculine, immodest dress on women with the burqa, we wouldn’t be worse off. I’m not arguing for either. If we’re going to point the finger at one, we should be able to point the finger at the other, except that the burqa in and of itself isn’t wrong. Only women wear it and it is modest. Obviously modest. The only thing more modest are those moving blankets at UHaul, but not wrong. What I’m saying is that we’re wrong, and they’re not wrong. I’m not saying they’re right, but they are at least not wrong. We are wrong, and wrong in a big way.
The burqa isn’t what destroys Moslem society. They suffer for many other reasons. We are not helping them by using lame and hypocritical arguments against their covering of women.’ http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com
There are some people you NEVER want to meet. Here is one of them.
‘A radical Drexel University professor who once wished for “White Genocide” for Christmas 
and hoped to “Abolish the White Race” is under fire again. This time, he said he wants to “vomit or yell about Mosul” after someone gave their seat to a uniformed soldier.
“Some guy gave up his first class seat for a uniformed soldier. People are thanking him. I’m trying not to vomit or yell about Mosul,”
Senior Townhall columnist Kurt Schlichter slammed Ciccariello, saying: “You tried not to vomit or yell? No, you just sat there quietly like a little bitch. Ignored, irrelevant, wishing you were a man.”
“Because you’re a douchebag?” tweeted prominent conservative Ben Shapiro.
This isn’t the first time the Drexel professor has been criticized. Last December, he tweeted how “All I want for Christmas is White Genocide.” Dexel investigated the issue and ended up releasing a statement claiming the professor’s tweets fall under the category of “protected speech” and that he wouldn’t lose his job.
Ciccariello, meanwhile, brushed off the backlash, insisting it was just a joke because “White isn’t a race” and blamed white supremacists for trying to make his tweets into an issue.
The professor has made a near-habit of posting inflammatory tweets on social media. He once tweeted “Abolish the White Race” and claimed that Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof “simply put into practice what many white Americans already think.”
He has also claimed that the murder of some 4,000 white people during the Haitian Revolution was a “good thing.”’ https://heatst.com/culture-wars/giving-up-a-seat-for-a-soldier-makes-pro-white-genocide-drexel-prof-want-to-vomit/
Nice guy! (NOT)
- ‘The mayor of Brampton, Ontario, Linda Jeffrey, was also seemingly unconcerned about the calls in Toronto to murder Jews.
- The political establishment also does not seem concerned that imams are saying that the Islamic ruling allowing slaves is still in force. Meanwhile, statistics show that when it comes to hate crimes, Jews are by far the most targeted group.
- No one — neither media, nor politicians — even bothered to ask whether there is a significant connection between the virulent Jew-hatred being preached in mosques and the disproportionately high occurrence of hate crimes against Jews. Instead, the entire Canadian parliament is preoccupied with banning “Islamophobia”.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10083/canada-islamization
whatyareckon 