Which Side Are You On?

As for Truth Before Dishonor, we know which side we are on.

Alton Nolen’s Mother speaks out

In an update to the Alton Nolen story, we have his mother’s assurance that it was not him, or the real him, that was there when this thing “happened”.

He was raised in a loving home, you see.

And Mom says, he believed in God.

Though that is not quite what is at issue: since no one disputes that Alton Nolen believed in a god of some sort; just not the Christian God his mother and sister appear to – sincerely – profess.

No, the god Alton Nolen professed was the god Muslim faithful refer to as “Allah”. And it was apparently Alton Nolen’s belief in Allah and in the Koran as the word of Allah, that led Nolen to argue that women should be stoned for certain offenses, and is probably why he beheaded the woman he chose as one of his slashing victims.

But you know, Alton’s mom is, perhaps understandably, having a hard time dealing with this.

 

“Relatives of the main suspect in an Oklahoma workplace beheading insist that he is a good person and would never hurt anyone.

Mother Joyce Nolen and sister Megan Nolen made the emotional claims in a video posted Saturday to Facebook. Accused killer Alton Nolen has a violent criminal past and has spent multiple stints in prison, records have shown.

“My son was a good kid,” said Joyce Nolen. “I know what they saying that he done, but I’m gonna tell you this – that’s not my son.”

 

Listening to the audio we hear this from his mother, transcribed below as accurately as possible without resorting to a phonetically reproduced “dialect” style of quoting:

 

“This uh I would like to make a statement on behalf of my son Alton Nolen …. my heart is just [undecipherable] right now

Uh, I know my son, my son was raised up in a lovin home. My son was raised up believing in God, that’s what he believed in. My son was a good kid.

You know, I know what they saying he done, but I’m gonna tell you this; that’s not my son.

There’s two sides to every story. And, we’re only hearing one.

His family, our hearts bleed right now, because what they saying Alton has done.

I wanta apologize to both families, because this is not Alton.

But I just … I’m praying that justice will prevail; the whole story will come out; the whole story.

 

There’s two sides to every story …

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“There’s two sides to every story and we’re hearing only one …”

“I’m praying that justice will prevail. The whole story will come out … the whole story … “

 

Yeah, Alton  was a good kid. Probably no “serious felonies” as they say in Ferguson.

Their hearts are bleeding too, figuratively speaking. Almost as much as the decapitated body of Alton’s victim did literally.

But remember! The whole story has not come out! Who are we to judge his acts before “the other side” ( whatever that might be) is heard?

 

Now, as regards Alton’s assaults on police officers? The prison time?

Well as sis puts it: “Alton my brother has always been a great person, a loving person, he’s always been a people person, he’s never been a violent person … so, for something like this to have happened …. [note the use of the passive voice]… And we are all  still in shock right now, we’re all still in shock …”

Well, that settles that.

He was a good kid, done wrong. Fired. Driven to act out in a way contrary to his loving God believing nature and upbringing.

The solution is obvious. Call in Sharpton  and …

Burn down Oklahoma.

 

 

But did he have his hands up in surrender?

Guest Posting from: The Progressive Center for Liberal-Islamic Solidarity and Sharia Justice.

 

“You have all seen this picture.

Greetings from the religion of peace

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is not the same picture we see!

Yes, so you say a woman was slaughtered with a knife, being decapitated in fact.  So you say the Muslim man who did this was caught in the process of attempting  to slaughter another. So you say he was shouting Islamic slogans as he engaged in this activity.

What’s any of that prove?

How can we Progressives who stand in solidarity with the oppressed and ignored of the world expect anything less, in this, a country so rife with injustice and bigotry and white hetero-normative privilege?

The important question, the question all good Progressives will instantly want to know is: “How come Alton Nolen was shot three times? And with a rifle!”

Was it because of his religion? Was it because he was black?

Imagining for a moment that there is some shred of truth to the corporate media line: Did he not pause even long enough to receive a fair warning? Were others proven to be in immanent danger of being harmed? How do those who say so, claim to know for sure?  Can their bigotry give them the power of reading minds?

What exactly has the alleged killing of one person, got to do with leveling lethal force against Alton Nolen when we do not yet know if there were any witnesses to the alleged first killing?

Why was Alton Nolen then made the repeated victim of potentially lethal force, when it has not even been proven that he intended to kill the one person with whom he was actually (and allegedly) witnessed to be in a tussle with?

What right had some uninvolved third party to interfere in this dispute and then to level potentially fatal violence against Alton, when they could not possibly have known what led to the altercation in the first place, and whether his actions in allegedly striking back against the power, were undoubtedly justified?

Instead Alton was ruthlessly gunned down … shot three times when he was virtually unarmed in comparison to a trigger happy corporate lackey with a rifle!!!

Alton had only, allegedly, a knife. The so-called knife was not even his own according to the initial reports. It was owned by the CORPORATION!

We suspect that what we have here is another instance of some rent-a-cop taking advantage of a power imbalance in order to lash out and victimize a person of color and a member of a maligned religious group, just because he was able to do so.

We demand information on exactly who the shooter was, and why he was armed in the first place! We demand to know who his parents are and where his wife and children live!

Who gave the would-be murderer of Alton Nolen a rifle? Who told him he was allowed to shoot Black men and Muslims? What right had the gunman to assume that the first (and remember it is only alleged) “beheading” was the work of Alton, and that the altercation which he did witness was not merely Alton defending himself, while uttering sacred prayers for deliverance, against an insufferable systemic provocation and disrespect?

Was the shooter even properly trained and licensed? Has he any indications in his background that he might be prejudiced against Muslims?

WHY … why we demand to know, did he shoot three times?!!! Was not one shot tearing into the helpless body of this poor, marginalized victim of capitalism, racism, and western imperialism  not enough?

 

Innocent!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We demand the immediate involvement of Eric Holder, and the avenging of the attempted murder of Alton Nolen: victim of capitalism, religious bigotry, western imperialism, and hetero-normative race privilege!!!  ”

 

 

 

The above opinion does not necessarily reflect the views of Truth Before Dishonor, its writers, contributors, employees, nor any sane person in the universe.

 

Nothing Is Coincidental in ObamaLand

Two stories popped up on Facebook that should raise eybrows around Europe Especially. Taken individually, it’s a well??? But together it should set off ALARM BELLS across at least Europe. First is that Islamist (no brand or flavor mentioned, but is that necessary?) stole ELEVEN Planes from Tripoli AP. Then our dear leader opens the ability of Flight Training to Libyans. 9/11 anyone. I’m 99% sure they won’t make it here, but Europe, especially Italy are close. ISIS already has a price on Pope Francis’s Head. Need I speculate more?

11 Planes Taken From Tripoli AP
(by Bill Gertz, Washington Free Beacon) — Islamist militias in Libya took control of nearly a dozen commercial jetliners last month, and western intelligence agencies recently issued a warning that the jets could be used in terrorist attacks across North Africa.

Intelligence reports of the stolen jetliners were distributed within the U.S. government over the past two weeks and included a warning that one or more of the aircraft could be used in an attack later this month on the date marking the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against New York and Washington, said U.S. officials familiar with the reports.

More Here

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/report-11-commercial-jetliners-missing-after-islamist-takeover-of-tripoli-airport-developing

THEN!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama Lifts Ban on Libyans Attending U.S. Flight Schools, Training In Nuke Science
Ban has been in place since 1983

BY: Adam Kredo
August 12, 2014 7:45 am

The Obama administration has lifted longtime restrictions on Libyans attending flight schools in the United States and training here in nuclear science, according to a final amendment of the ban recently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Less than two years after the deadly terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is poised to sign off on an amendment reversing the ban, which was enacted following a wave or terrorist attacks in 1980s and prevents Libyans from studying these sensitive trades in the United States.

More of this HERE:

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-lifts-ban-on-libyans-attending-u-s-flight-schools-training-in-nuke-science/

I Have An Idea Putin Will Love!

Putin has this idea that he can invade sovereign nations that have Russian speakers if those Russian speakers are “threatened.” Sounds very Hitleresque, don’t ya think? Even Stalinesque, as Hitler and Stalin agreed to sub-divide Poland before Hitler decided to kill Russians.

In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into Nazi and Soviet “spheres of influence“, anticipating potential “territorial and political rearrangements” of these countries. Thereafter, Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. After the Soviet-Japanese ceasefire agreement took effect on 16 September, Stalin ordered his own invasion of Poland on 17 September.^[3] Part of southeastern (Karelia) and Salla region in Finland were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Romania (Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertza region).

The pact remained in force until the German government broke it by invading the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941.

Of the territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union between 1939 and 1940, the region around Białystok and a minor part of Galicia east of the San river around Przemyśl were the only ones returned to the Polish state at the end of World War II. Of all other territories annexed by the USSR in 1939–40, the ones detached from Finland (Karelia, Petsamo), Estonia (Ingrian area and Petseri County) and Latvia (Abrene) remained part of the Russian Federation, the successor state of the Soviet Union, after 1991. Northern Bukovina, Southern Bessarabia and Hertza remain part of Ukraine.

I know that’s a wiki source, and it only a little more trustable than a Leftist, but it is a source that provides other sources (eventually), and everyone knows by now Communist Russia (hello, Putin and American Leftists) and National Socialist Germany (hello, neo-Nazis and American Leftists) divvied up eastern Europe before Germany invaded Poland, and that’s why Germany deemed it safe to invade Poland to begin with. Also note how Communist Russia had an officer-depleted military due to Stalin purges. Anyone else see anything familiar happening now? (Hello, Obama, you formerly official member of Socialists in the US.) Here’s an article from The History Channel (and it is still less than honest in favor of a Leftist retelling of history).

The former KGB agent who is trying to reconstitute the old Soviet Union, with whom Hillary Clinton had that horrendously failed “RESET BUTTON” and to whom the formerly official and still Socialist Barack Obama (link, link, link) said he will have more flexibility, has decided any who “speak Russian” are reasons to invade sovereign nations. So, once we throw the known Socialist out of office and put a patriot in office, maybe we can declare any English speaker who is “threatened” gives the US reason enough to invade Socialist and Islamist nations. Vladimir Putin, the former KGB Colonel, has given us precedents (as opposed to precedence (a singular term)).

ISIS threatens to destroy Chicago and Americans shrug

 

“E Pluribus Unum” no more.

WGNtv Chicago posts the alarming “news” that ISIS has the destruction of Chicago in its sights.

And Americans fed up with the totalitarian collectivists and moral nihilist appetite entities of the left who have already eaten away at not only our civilization but at our heritage of liberties, react with a shrug at the notion of the mayor of chicago trapped in the flaming ruins of the ecological niche his leftist ambition fouls and undermines.

We recall of course  that some 13 years ago progressive propagandist and cherished celebrity, His Rotundity Michael Moore, infamously set the stage for the spread of this attitude, when he asked in dismay why the Muslims had to attack New York, a liberal metropolis, rather than some conservative heartland site.

Gee, if the terrorists had just murdered conservative Christians, then Michael Moore could have understood, and maybe even sympathized.

Yeah Michael you submoral dog. So much for E Pluribus Unum, eh?

Well, thirteen years into it, those Americans who still value liberty and self-direction have gotten so used to the homicidal malice of the collectivist class, that they now, in turn, shrug at the thought of the collectivists themselves being destroyed by morally alien forces.

The underlying question is: What do you actually lose, when a malevolent parasite which has attached itself to you through your own long suffering tolerance and forbearance, is swept away by another?

Many have noticed that modern liberalism and Islamism are both anti-liberty of conscience, socially fascistic, and legally totalitarian ideologies. Many freedom loving Americans, less naive than their parents and grandparents, are apparently now prepared to stand back and watch “Hitler “and “Stalin” destroy each other; even if the war takes place on our own soil.

The question of whether the destruction would have unstoppably catastrophic side effects aside, it’s hard to blame a free man for shrugging at the destruction of those emotionalists who are, and have been, working for decades to destroy his freedom and ultimately his life.

What has a free man got to lose, when one flavor of collectivist is killed by another?

 

 

UPDATE:

Now here is something puzzling: the comments don’t seem to load up from the WGNtv link above anymore. Nor from the old (earlier today) history link, nor from internal links in the web page I preserved .

So, as a fair comment proof of this post’s contention, I shall quote a few of the more temperate comments below. Recognizable personal names are redacted, and discernibly racist crackpot bigotry is deleted.

 

            *****

• • Hey, Give them a two for one deal and throw in Detroit… It would be a win win for the rest of the US.

    August 22, 2014 at 11:43 AM Reply
    Dantes

    Judging by the weekly death toll in Chicago, ISIS is already here.

    August 22, 2014 at 11:34 AM Reply
    iambicpentamaster

    When they destroy Chicago, D.C. will be the new U.S. murder capital.

    ChicagObama’s legacy…

    August 22, 2014 at 11:34 AM Reply
    J********a

    Dear Chicago,
    God forbid that you should fry like so many little french fries caught in the searing heat of a deep fryer. But, if you do, remember it was you and your kin that put Obama in office. You gave us a slug of a president whose ability in foreign affairs is zero to none.
    I will feel sorry for you later, because right now I can’t.

    August 22, 2014 at 11:34 AM Reply
    w*****9

    Chicago goes up and this president must be removed before he takes the rest of the country down Impeachment and removal. He has clearly shown a total disregard for the security of this country and dares play golf at a time of crisis. Unfortunately, with ISIS here, possibly, we will need to employ every weapon at our disposal to eliminate them and their threat. Without security, what good is anything.

    August 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM Reply
    O’Malley is a IDIOT

    Geee …. do you think because Chicago is Obozo’s home town that might be the reason .

    August 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM Reply
    schm0e

    Chicago?

    Whatever.

    August 22, 2014 at 11:36 AM Reply
    39Mosin

    Ok, you can have Chicago.
    No big loss.

    August 22, 2014 at 11:37 AM Reply
    1Yousuck

    perfect target! beautiful poetic justice!

    make no mistake. obama, democrats, libs, etc…truly believe in the undoing of Aimerican pride, power, success, etc…and a much more destructive and impoverished world is the natural result, when you undercut a free people.

    so, let the reaping of their sowing be true. these dark-hearted people are intent on allowing more evil, and letting it come here. therefore, let it come upon them FIRST!

    my prayer since obama’s first election has been simple: let ALL them that voted for him reap to the fullest, what they have sown: social degradation (ferguson), economic failure (unemployment, welfarism), and ground zero as the next terrorist attack (chicago)

    August 22, 2014 at 11:37 AM Reply
     

    gunnyginalaska

    Dear ISIS, if you can’t hit Sh*tcago, might I suggest other cities like Oakland, SF, Trenton, Filthadelphia, Camden, Detoilet, or any other city full of liberals will work.

    August 22, 2014 at 11:37 AM Reply
    Obamaroid Ointment (@Obama_Ointment)

    Jihadis attack ☪hicagostan? Why would they want to camel poop in their own tent?

    August 22, 2014 at 11:39 AM Reply
    *****

    Chicago and their corrupt leftist progressive politician’s polices and the “peaceful” muslims who live among them deserve each other.

    August 22, 2014 at 11:41 AM Reply
    Whogivesasheey

    Please do take out Chicago. Good Luck.

    August 22, 2014 at 11:42 AM Reply
    Iraq/Afg Vet

    Most Americans don’t have the stomach for what it would take to truly rid the world of this cancer. Rules of Engagement, the enemy using human shields and hiding in schools, religious temples and mosques all make any operation dicey, and open to scrutiny by those too meek to even take part — but not afraid to arm-chair QB. Once again, the U.S. is alone because our allies in Europe don’t have the stones to do what is needed. Once again, we will inevitably come to the rescue and risk our troops, spend our money and resources, and bear the burden of fighting another terrorist group in someone else’s backyard — while the rest of the world does nothing but judge. The only way to rid the world of these guys is to take them head on with severe malice. No more of the ticky-tack, PC, inoffensive stuff. Either we go in guns blazing and with bad intentions, or we sit out and tell the rest of the world to figure it out.

    August 22, 2014 at 11:42 AM Reply
    Gomer Pyle

    chicago?

    ok,,, no big loss anyway

    August 22, 2014 at 11:43 AM Reply
    Psalmon

    1. Sickens me to hear O talk about Justice for anyone who harms Americans, when he does nothing on Benghazi
    2. John Kerry our SOS keeps claiming Climate Change is our #1 threat

    These guys are almost bigger lunatics than ISIS.

 

Jew-Hating Mainstream Media Used As Human Shields. Will They Become #Pro-Israel?

Yeah, like that’s ever gonna happen. But seriously, Hamas used the media as human shields as they launched a rocket aimed at Israel from the Gaza hotel that the media uses.

On August 1, terrorists fired a rocket at Israel from the al-Mashtal hotel frequented by foreign journalists in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/FzPXrA7zs2

— IDF (@IDFSpokesperson) August 4, 2014

DAILY RECAP: Day 27 of Operation Protective Edge. 108 rockets struck Israel. pic.twitter.com/M2iLIxonEF

— IDF (@IDFSpokesperson) August 4, 2014

Will the media wake up to the Truth? Is the Pope Hindu?

Progressives, Mainstream Media Are Anti-Semites

Sorry for the redundancy in the headline. While Truth Before Dishonor is decidedly pro-Israel, as is any Bible-believing Christian, the Democrat Party, as shown in their loudly booing the insertion of pro-Israel language in its platform in 2012, Progressives, Mainstream Media (brought to you by the Redundant Department of Redundancy) are decidedly anti-Israel. To the extreme that they support Islamic Jihadists, Islamic terrorists, child-murdering war criminals against the peace-desiring, self-defense-minded, self-preservation minded Israelis and the only nation in the Middle-East that is both Democratic and tolerant of Mohammedism, Christianity, Judaism, atheism.

From Robert Stacy McCain:

Here’s how the liberal mind works: The only thing they need to know is, “Who’s the victim of oppression?” Once the liberal media decides Palestinians are victims and Israelis are oppressors, it doesn’t matter what actually happens — Hamas suicide bombers blowing up busloads of innocent Israelis, launching missiles at Tel Aviv, whatever — the victim/oppressor dynamic controls the narrative.

Over 100K people have been Killed in Syria since 2011 but Nobody cares b/c they can't blame #Israel #IsraelUnderFire pic.twitter.com/Ihi7KDcPiv

— בועזיז (@Boazziz) July 18, 2014

Stand for Freedom.
Stand for religious tolerance.
Stand for Democratic rule of Law.
Stand against genocide.
Stand against bigotry.

Stand up for the right of Israel to exist and Jews to live.
Down with the lying Media. Down with the lying Hamas and State-sponsored Terrorism.

Where Hamas Hides Their Missiles Used In Killing Children

Hamas has meetings and stores weapons across the street from an UNRWA medical center, a school and civilian homes. pic.twitter.com/eW0UIrdcxP

— IDF (@IDFSpokesperson) July 14, 2014

Any questions?

Emotions as knowledge?

 

Or is it emotions, i.e., feelings, as “the only certain knowledge”?

This post is not an argument in favor of “emotional knowledge” whatever that might be taken to mean. Nor is it about some theory of psychological health, involving the integration of all aspects of the human personality.

Instead, it is a momentary reflection on the degrading effects of skepticism, both moral and perhaps epistemological as well, on the ability of the convinced skeptic – if such a term is permissible – to actually engage in moral argument.

This was brought forcefully to mind by a YouTube video posted by Yorkshire on First Street Journal.

In this video we see a youthful British woman clad in sandals and a baggy red shift-like garment reaching to well below the knees, bemoaning the manner in which radical Moslems now inhabiting her old Luton neighborhood are protesting the arrest of the wife of Moslem who had set off a bomb in Stockholm.

What seems to really upset the British girl is the Moslem vitriol; their loudly antagonistic, hateful, and contemptuously hostile way of expressing themselves with respect to the institutions of both the culture and the country which has harbored and sheltered, and if news reports are right, often literally housed and fed them.

She seems especially disturbed by the marchers’ chant that the British police should burn in hell.

Attempting to engage one contemptuous burka clad protester in conversation, she’s informed that she looks naked; and is asked if she is trying to seduce.

Put on some clothes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

She is told to “Go and put on some clothes”.

She becomes indignant, sputtering, “How you chose to dress like that, I chose to dress like this”.

The British woman then protests that her female critic is “judging” her.

The female marcher cheerfully admits that she is indeed judging the indignant and whiny western woman.

The westerner babbles that she should not be judged because she is not judging the Moslem woman; just as if the Moslem woman actually believed that she and the western woman were moral peers inhabiting the same moral plane.

“I don’t judge you, because I’m above that” says the western woman, while flailing her arms about for emphasis.

“Don’t you dare speak to me like that.” she rails.  ‘This is my hometown as well”:  again, implicitly referring to a moral framework based on respect for persons – even the stupid, weak, and misguided – which assumes a vision of living space and power “sharing”,  at which the Moslems marchers obviously sneer.

The now emotionally wounded westerner continues her own feelings-jihad with, “I try my hardest to sympathize with people who may be different to me, and it’s this tiny minority …”

Ah yes, dear, please say again for the cameras how broadminded and accepting you are. I am sure that that will make the desired impression on the marchers. Once they are sure, you know, that you mean no harm and will respect them.

Hoping then to score rhetorical points along this line by appealing to a male marcher with the concept of “fairness”, she is informed in short order that it is indeed OK to shout that British police should burn in hell.  Because you see, Britain has free speech. And further, in response to your question dear lady as to whether Koran-observant Moslems ought to respect the laws of the country that hosts them?

Well, the answer is, “No”.

Eventually, she encounters some scholar type who informs her Koranic-like chapter and verse that Moslems need not observe non-Moslem law in their host countries, and, that she is going to hell to boot.

She responds with, “It hurts me to think that you think that of me because you don’t really know me …” As if that would make a difference.

To which the scholar-type replies that he knows quite enough. He knows she is not a Moslem.

Well, she tried to be understanding and fair and considerate of everyone’s feelings. What else is there to say?

A little, apparently.

She sets the tone of the wrap-up of her video adventure with a voice-over wherein she announces she, “finds it sad that anyone would preach such a damning message”.

Then, tremulously facing the camera: “To sum up in words to tell you how I’m feeling now …  I feel … gutted, completely gutted that this is happening ….”

Words failing her she goes silent; and saying no more, turns her head away from camera and toward the protesters.

A pause …. to let the profundity of the feelings sink in ….

Feelings … hurt … feelings … are her frame of reference. Along with mutual sympathy and respect for all differences; emphasizing the notion of a tolerant and accepting  “fairness” among presumed “equals”.

But she is obviously not their equal. Not in physical fact clearly, and not according to the moral theory they announce.

And what does she have in her ideological armamentarium with which to respond to them?

Feelings. She has feelings. And she wants to tell you about her feelings and how hurtful you are being to them.

I guess she imagines the Moslems must care about her feelings. Or that they should care. It is almost as if she sees her feelings as some great scale by which moral principles ought to be weighed and evaluated.

But the Moslem marchers obviously don’t care. And I don’t see how they could care, given her pathetic intellectual performance. I certainly don’t care, and like her, I am a westerner myself.

Western culture, the postmodernist, modern liberal portion of it, is not only skeptical of religious dogmatism, it is skeptical (and increasingly outright nihilistic) regarding moral knowledge in general, and quite often about the possibility of solid or enduring knowledge concerning reality itself.

Positive, empirical science, the one practice that is still thought by some of this ideological stripe to yield what can be called certain knowledge, is held by these same persons to be value free, and incapable of yielding any “is” information, which leads to “ought” conclusions.

When it comes to moral questions then, all this kind of person can do when confronted by other some person having dogmatic and insistent views is, just as C.S. Lewis and others before him long ago observed,  to remark on the state of their feelings.

Of course “way back when”, when Lewis laid out the implications of such relativism and skepticism, and then described its inevitably hapless and pathetic end-point, his reductio ad absurdum depiction had a certain flavor of the comically ironic about it. Certainly, and whatever their 20th century progressive opinion leader rhetoric, no broad segment of any society would actually embrace skepticism and relativism to a point wherein they would wind up quite so stupid and hapless in the face of a strident and mocking challenge to their assumed “values”, as we saw here?

Well, with enough propagandizing social affirmation and encouragement, they obviously can.

What then, Lewis and others presented as a warning via their careful exercises in hypothetical logic, and the inevitable conclusions of their chains of reasoning, this young woman is now living out in fact.

She embraced the skeptical milquetoast meta-values presented to her. She internalized them. She then lived comfortably among similar enabling others who had no motivation to rock or test their relativist boat,  exposing its virtually non-existent freeboard, and lack of seaworthiness.

Now however, she confronts hostile and vehement others who, in an act of modern values sacrilege, sneer at her feelings and test her values with their life and death commitments.

And all she can do is announce to the world how THAT makes her feel; and theatrically shake her head with sadness as a means of trying to elevate herself  to her lost honor and dignity. After all, she’s “above that” other stuff.

Yes … I guess she is. Just as long as those vestiges of western moral ideals more potent than the relativism and skepticism and values emotivism which she represents and lives out, continue to hold the moral barbarians somewhat at bay.

 

[Update note. I’ve made some wording changes in the first 2/3rds “narrative portion” of the post. Changing word order, tightening up slightly, checking punctuation and coherence, and doing the things real bloggers do when they write a draft before posting.  The more analytical remarks about postmodern culture are unchanged.]

 

 

Veterans’ Day 2012

From Cassy Fiano, six days ago:

Remember Fort Hood: Three Years Later

by CASSY | NOVEMBER 5, 2012

Three years ago today, there was a jihadist attack on Fort Hood perpetrated by Major Nidal Hasan. Michelle Malkin has the names of those murdered, which included one soldier’s unborn baby:

1. LTC Juanita Warman, 55, Havre de Grace, Md.
2. MAJ Libardo Caraveo, 52, Woodbridge, Va.
3. CPT John P. Gaffaney, 54, San Diego, Calif.
4. CPT Russell Seager, 41, Racine, Wis.
5. SSG Justin Decrow, 32, Plymouth, Ind.
6. SGT Amy Krueger, 29, Kiel, Wis.
7. SPC Jason Hunt, 22, Tillman, Okla.
8. SPC Frederick Greene, 29, Mountain City, Tenn.
9. PFC Aaron Nemelka, 19, West Jordan, Utah
10. PFC Michael Pearson, 22, Bolingbrook, Ill.
11. PFC Kham Xiong, 23, St. Paul, Minn.
12. PVT Francheska Velez, 21, Chicago, Ill. and her unborn baby
13. Michael G. Cahill, Cameron, Texas [civilian]

It still breaks my heart thinking of Pvt. Velez especially, who cried out for her baby as she lay dying.

A pregnant soldier shot during a rampage at a Texas Army post last year cried out, “My baby! My baby!” as others crawled under desks, dodged bullets that pierced walls and rushed to help their bleeding comrades, a military court heard Monday.

A soldier had just told Spc. Jonathan Sims that she was expecting a baby and was preparing to go home, when the first volley of gunfire rang out Nov. 5 in a Fort Hood building where soldiers get medical tests before and after deploying.

“The female soldier that was sitting next to me was in the fetal position. She was screaming: ‘My baby! My baby!’” Sims said.

It’s pretty much a known fact for anyone with more than two brain cells in their head that the attack on Fort Hood was a terrorist attack. Hasan had plenty of evidence against him there. He defended suicide bombings and said that Muslim service members were justified in killing US troops. He was in contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, one of the world’s most notorious terrorists. And what did they discuss? Carrying out jihad in the United States.

Yet Barack Obama continues to classify this attack as “workplace violence”.

Shame on him.

How can there be shame on someone who is shameless?

If there was ever a time for the Commander-in-Chief to change the designation away from the idiotic “workplace violence” tag to something which would allow the award of Purple Hearts to the victims of Nidal Hasan’s deliberate attack on American soldiers, Veterans’ Day would be that time.

I do not understand why he does not; it isn’t as though doing so could somehow inflame passions of the Muslims around the world against the United States more; we are at war against the Islamists, and are actively killing them in Afghanistan, directly, through combat, and in Pakistan via the occasional drone attack against al Qaeda leaders. We sent SEAL Team 6 into Abbottabad, Pakistan, to eliminate Osama bin Laden, and we used unmanned drones in Yemen to kill Anwar al-Awlaki and then his son,Abdulrahman al-Awlaqi, though the actual target at that time was (supposedly) Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian al Qaeda operative. The Muslims know that we are at war with the Islamists, and the American people know that we are at war with the Islamists, and there is really no reason at all not to designate the Fort Hood massacre as an Islamist attack on our soldiers.

THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL salutes our veterans on Veterans’ Day, and as much as I can speak for our host here, TRUTH BEFORE DISHONOR does as well.
_______________________________________
Cross-posted on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.
_______________________________________
Related articles:

• A dry straight razor
• The Fort Hood Massacre victims: no Purple Hearts for them!
• Fort Hood and the Election
• My daughter is safe
• Fort Hood Massacre Is Just Another Workplace Violence Issue According to BO

Sorry, Israel, You’re On Your Own

We tried and failed. We on the Right worked hard to rid our government of the man who would deign to utter the words “The Future Must Not Belong to Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam”, in complete rejection of our First Amendment and complete rejection of Judaism and Christianity. We tried and failed.

And just as we Christians and the practicing Jews here in the US are having our Religious Freedoms stripped from us by the Obama administration are left further unprotected and unsafe and unfree, so are you, Israel. You’re on your own. For the next four years, you cannot count on the US to help keep you safe from the Mohammedan terrorists surrounding you who want nothing less than your total annihilation.

You are now “a nation of unwalled cities” and only Providence can help you now. You have no friendly nations to come to your rescue.

But you still have many millions of people here in the US who are praying vehemently to Adonai on your behalf. The US will fail you, and just did. But Yahweh will not. Even as the followers of the evil, genocidal, pedophiliac, burning in Sheol Mohammed redouble their efforts to destroy you, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph will be there for you. As He promised.

A dry straight razor

John Hitchcock has informed me that Lee DeCovnick of the American Thinker picked up and referenced my article, The Fort Hood Massacre victims: no Purple Hearts for them!, published on TRUTH BEFORE DISHONOR. It was published on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL as well, but the link was to the article on Mr Hitchcock’s site.

It’s interesting that that link came today; Sister Toldjah tweeted:

RT @breakingnews: Army appeals court rules Fort Hood shooting suspect can be forcibly shaved before trial – @ap

— Sister Toldjah (@sistertoldjah) October 18, 2012

Here’s the story:

Army appeals court rules Fort Hood shooting suspect can be forcibly shaved before trial

Published October 18, 2012 | Associated Press

FORT HOOD, Texas – An Army appeals court has ruled that the Fort Hood shooting suspect can have his facial hair forcibly shaved off before his murder trial.

The U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals’ opinion issued Thursday upheld the military trial judge’s decision to order Maj. Nidal Hasan to appear in court clean shaven or be forcibly shaved.

It also ruled that Col. Gregory Gross, the judge, properly found that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act doesn’t give Hasan the right to have a beard while in uniform at trial.

Hasan has said the beard is an expression of his Muslim faith. His attorneys say they’ll appeal the ruling.

I wonder: do they have to use lather and hot water, or is a dry straight razor acceptable? 🙂

Of course, I’m sure that they will use an electric razor on this fine example of the religion of peace.

I suspect that Major Hasan’s insistence on wearing a beard is less “an expression of his Muslim faith” than it is of doing what little he can to spite the Army and the United States again. If it were truly his Muslim faith, after having launched a martyrdom attack, he would proudly plead guilty and ask for a sentence of death. Perhaps he thinks that he’ll be able to use his court martial to issue some kind of grandiose statement, but the presiding officer will quickly squelch that.

I don’t recall discussing the death penalty much on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL, but readers of my old site will recall that I am opposed to capital punishment. Major Hasan could be sentenced to death if found guilty, and part of me would like to see that, just so we could see how the brave Islamist warrior shrinks from such a fate and appeals the sentence. But, in reality, the best sentence would be life in prison, deprived of all of his religious materials, with a crucifix hanging on his wall, forever out of his reach, and a promise to throw his body to the pigs when he finally dies. Let him languish, remembering every day as he urinates and defecates in his diaper¹ that while he may have killed fourteen people who were better than him, he is really a small and unimportant man creature, headed only for Hell.
_______________________________
¹ – Major Hasan was paralyzed from the waist down by fire from the security guards who finally stopped his rampage.
_______________________________
Cross posted on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech

From

Netanyahu’s Bomb Diagram During U.N. Speech Stirs Confusion in Israel

By Isabel Kershner and Rick Gladstone | Published: September 28, 2012

JERUSALEM — When the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, drew his red line on a cartoonish diagram of a bomb from the podium of the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, he intended to illustrate in simple terms the point at which Iran’s uranium enrichment program must be stopped, at least in Israel’s view, to thwart a final sprint to a nuclear weapon.

Instead, the attention-grabbing performance seems to have created confusion in, of all places, Israel.

Mr. Netanyahu’s bomb was divided into sections marked 70 percent and 90 percent, representing the progress Iran has made, and is expected to make, toward amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb, Israeli officials and experts said. Mr. Netanyahu drew his red line at 90 percent, asserting that the Iranians would be 90 percent along the way by next spring or summer.

But on Friday, Yediot Aharonot, a popular newspaper, published a drastically different interpretation. It assumed, erroneously, that Mr. Netanyahu had been referring not to progress made by Iran, but to actual percentages of uranium enrichment in his diagram, now known as the “Bibi Bomb,” a reference to Mr. Netanyahu’s nickname.

Much more at the link.

Whether Prime Minister Netanyahu meant that the Iranians were 70% on the way to being able to build an atomic bomb, or he was referring to 70% enrichment having been achieved, either is worrisome. Current guesstimates have Iran with a stockpile of uranium enriched to about 20% U235, which is considered weapons usable, for a crude bomb, but as the enrichment levels get lower, the amount needed to reach a critical mass grows very large. Uranium enriched to 85% U₂₃₅ is considered weapons grade. However, once 20% enrichment has been achieved, further enrichment to 90% does not take that long.

Haaretz claimed that the Prime Minister’s speech was meant much more for the Israeli public:

In UN speech, Netanyahu targets Iran, but aims for Israeli public

By Aluf Benn, Editor-in-Chief | Sep.29, 2012 | 4:01 PM

In his wildest fantasy, after going up to the podium to deliver his speech at the United Nations General Assembly and voicing predictable warnings about the Jewish historical plight, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu likely pictured himself pulling out a note from his blazer and reading the dramatic message:

“IDF Chief just informed me of the successful completion of an operation against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Our soldiers are on the way home with no reported casualties, holding enriched Uranium Iran has harbored in recent years. The threats on Israel, the Gulf States and the global economy have been removed. I want to take this opportunity to thank all IDF combatants for their remarkable achievement, and join me in applauding them.”

But this wild dream did not come true. IDF soldiers remained in their bases, and the enrichment of uranium persists. Netanyahu settled for the thick red marker, which he used to draw a red line on a bomb diagram he brought from home, and tried to explain to the international community where and when to stop Iran before it’s too late.

Placing Iran at the top of his agenda serves Netanyahu’s political goals well ahead of a campaign cycle in which he will be running for his third term as Israel’s premier. He is perceived by the public as the only statesman capable of confronting the Iranian challenge, and his focus on the issue has only catapulted him to the top of the polls.

Netanyahu is, as usual, attentive to his public, catering his UN speech on Thursday to polls at home, which indicate that Israelis are concerned about Iran, but think the U.S. is the one that should take the country on, not Israel. Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have not succeeded in convincing public opinion that the IDF can handle the Iranian threat on its own. The public has spoken: Not now and not alone.

Netanyahu’s speech was precisely suited to this position: He called on the international community to determine a red line on Iran – or in other words to threaten it with war – and did not proclaim that Israel would go it alone if “the world” disappoints it. Netanyahu wanted to sound resolute, just like viewers at home love, but without barking up a tree he will have a hard time climbing down from.

Mr Benn states that the Israeli public prefer that the United States take the lead on this issue, and are not inclined to support a go-it-alone position on the part of Israel.

But when facing an existential threat, Israel may not be able to afford to rely on others. The generation which survived the Holocaust is mostly gone now, and the few survivors remaining who were older than toddlers at the time are at least in their seventies, but the history is clear: when the Jews of Europe depended on other people for their survival, half of them were slaughtered, and the other half would have been had the Third Reich won the war.
_____________________________
Cross posted on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.
_____________________________
Added (admin): Also see Dana Pico’s Binyamin Netanyahu: “Do you want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons?”

Binyamin Netanyahu: “Do you want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons?”

From Karen, the Lonely Conservative:

‘A New Standard for Human Stupidity’

September 16, 2012

We now have to look to foreign leaders to hear some common sense. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared on Meet the Press this morning, saying things that make sense. I’m surprised his comments weren’t cut.

Continuing his calls for the United States to join Israel in imposing “red lines” threatening military action if Iran continues to pursue weapons made from enriched uranium, Netanyahu told David Gregory that “Iran is guided by a leadership with an unbelievable fanaticism.”

“It’s the same fanaticism that you see storming your embassies today,” he added. “Do you want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons?”

He then lamented that some in the American press have vocalized opposition to Israel’s desired end to an Iranian nuclear program: “I mean I heard some people suggest, David — I actually read this in the American press — they said, ‘Well, you know, if you take action, that’s a lot worse than having Iran with nuclear weapons. Some have even said that Iran with nuclear weapons would stabilize the Middle East, stabilize the Middle East.”

“I think the people who say this have set a new standard for human stupidity,” he said of those opponents.

No wonder Obama doesn’t want to meet with him.

The Other McCain has more.

Bob Woodward made a very important observation on Meet the Press, that our intelligence information, that everyone’s intelligence information, is often not as accurate as they’d like to believe it is. The most well-known failure of intelligence was when the United States believed, wholeheartedly, that Iraq retained old, and was building new, chemical weapons in 2002, but it was hardly the only one. Mr Woodward stated that any claims that anyone knew, for certain, exactly how far along Iran was toward building nuclear weapons were foolish; their intelligence estimates might happen to be dead-on accurate, but they could also be very far off.

That, of course, brings up the very old military question: do you prepare for what you believe is the worst your enemies could do, or for what you believe they are most likely to do? For Israel, a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat, and the answer, for most intelligent people, would be that they must prepare for the worst Iran could do; if it turns out that they overprepared, then they will have wasted time and effort and money, but their nation will endure. If they decide to base their preparations on what they think their enemies are most likely to do, and they guess wrong, the consequences could be devastating.

And that is why, to Prime Minister Netanyahu, the notion that there is anything worse than an Iran armed with nuclear weapons “set(s) a new standard for human stupidity.” Armchair strategists who have the responsibility for nothing have the luxury of theorizing about what might or could or should or probably will or will not happen; the men with the actual responsibility of protecting their nations’ actual survival don’t have that luxury.
______________________________________
Cross-posted on THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.