Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

26 January 2013

"Does It Really Have To Be That High?"

M2RB:  Pat Benatar


 Hit me with your best shot...or maybe not


On Thursday, I wrote: 

"If women want to serve in combat roles on the front lines, then they should have to meet the same physical strength requirements that men must...and I say this as a woman.  I don't believe that men are superior to women, but I do think that, in most cases, men are stronger than women... 

A woman must possess the strength required of a man in combat because the enemy is, generally, as strong as the man.   We’ve come a long way, baby.  That’s true.  Whether we are strong enough to physically fight in combat should be determined by the same standards used to certify men.  If we demand less or special treatment, then we not only have a long way still to go, we should stop it with the taunt that “We can do anything a man can do!” 

“What difference does it make” that the military requires women to perform at 80%?  Everything…on the battlefield."

Well, whoomp, here it is!
CNS News reports: 

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded – and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: “Does it really have to be that high?” 

Dempsey’s comments came at a Pentagon news conference with Defense Sec. Leon Panetta Thursday, announcing the shift in Defense Department policy opening up all combat positions to women…

… Dempsey replied: “No, I wouldn’t put it in terms of operations, Jim. What I would say is that, as we look at the requirements for a spectrum of conflict, not just COIN, counterinsurgency, we really need to have standards that apply across all of those.”

He added: “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”

Pic of the Day: Liar, Liar!

Pressing Question Of The Day: Do Juice Boxes Make You Gay?

M2RB:  Robert Ownby


The answer is "Yes!" according to Alex Nutter Jones!!!

From The Puff Host:

We've heard a lot of ridiculous things about where LGBT people come from and what they're capable of (see the slideshow below), but Alex Jones' claim that the government is creating gays with chemicals takes conspiracy theories to a new level.

The InfoWars radio host grabbed the spotlight in recent weeks after slamming CNN's Piers Morgan for making comments against pro-gun advocates and he even went so far as to try to get him deported back to the UK. Now Jones is raising eyebrows again after a series of clips from several years ago began to recirculate on the Internet this week.

In the video he claims:

"[The] government is 'encouraging homosexuality with chemicals so that people don't have children' and that he has the documentation to prove it. Upon cutting open a juice box to show the plastic membrane supposedly filled with said chemicals he concludes, 'After [little boys] are done drinking your juices, [they're] ready to go out and have a baby... [they're] ready to put together a garden of roses... [they're] ready to go put lipstick on...'"

Jones is also worried about MSG in Kettle Chips and fluoride in spring water.

In another clip he states that troublesome chemicals are seeping into water ways and even turning male frogs into female frogs. Research has shown that chemicals found in common weed killers have been proven to "feminize" male frogs, but it is not clear if the same effects could take place with humans.

While we're still waiting for experts to come up with a definitive answer as to why people are gay or straight (and we may never know), we've never come across anyone -- other than Jones -- who thinks it is due to juice boxes. What do you think?


As I recently wrote with regard to the conspiracy theories being generated about the Newtown Truthers, THIS IS WHY PEOPLE LIKE ALEX JONES SHOULD BE SHUNNED.  IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE IS CORRECT ON MANY ISSUES.  WHEN HE AND HIS FRIENDS DO STUFF LIKE THIS, THEY MAKE US ALL LOOK LIKE NUTTERS.  Anyone, who goes on his show, should be aware of the fact that they will be tarred with the same moonbattery/asshattery brush.

If there is a conspiracy theory into which Alex Jones hasn't bought into, I'm unaware of it.  I listen to him on occasion so that you, dear reader, don't have to.  Yeppers, that's me.  Saving part of the world from the asininity of Jones one reader at a time; however, if you are the a DIY-type, be prepared...very prepared.

If you read or listen to him, you will see every kind of conspiracy theory discussed that you can imagine from the staged moon landing and the government's alleged destruction of the original Moon (Or was it Mars?  Maybe, we should ask Sheila Jackson-Lee?) landing tapes (How did they get through the Van Allen Radiation Belts?) to the 9/11 truther movement and nanothermite to mind-control through fluoridated water to a "New World Order" plot to depopulate the world population by 90% after which the remaining proles will slave for the elite, who will (through medical technology and organ harvesting -- no doubt through vivisection) turn into some sort of humanoid, computerised lizardmen (OK, I threw in the lizardmen part, but lizardmen are real.  Ask Jones' blood-brotha, David Icke - he is the founder of the lizardman theory movement), who will live forever -- transhumanism -- snacking on the babies of the disgusting humans that are worse than the lowest of cockroaches. (If you have 2:19:30, you can watch Alex Jones' entire opus on this subject, Endgame - Blueprint for Global Enslavement here). 

Infowars Alex Jones Believes Bilderberg Attendees Ship in Gold Covered Roasted Babies to Eat


Apes, Pigs, and F-16s

M2RB:  Jethro Tull

The rivers are full of crocodile nasties
and He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
He's a lover of life but a player of pawns ---
yes, the King on His sunset lies waiting for dawn
to light up His Jungle
as play is resumed.
The monkeys seem willing to strike up the tune.

Let's bungle in the jungle --- well, that's all right by me.
I'm a tiger when I want love,
but I'm a snake if we disagree.

Pssst, Morsi, if you want to see a bloody, fucking pig, then look in the mirror, nutter!

By Andrew C. McCarthy

When Mohamed Morsi dehumanizes Jews as “the descendants of apes and pigs,” there’s an elephant in the room. We find it here:

Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil — these are many times worse in rank, and far more astray from the even Path!

You see, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood mahoff–turned–president did not conjure up the apes-and-pigs riff on his own. When Morsi fulminates that Muslims “must not forget to nurse our children and grandchildren on hatred towards those Zionists and Jews, and all those who support them,” he is taking his cues straight from the Koran. Or rather, from the Holy Koran, as “progressive” American politicians take pains to call it in the off hours from their campaign to drive every last vestige of Judeo-Christian culture from the public square. 

The excerpt above is not from the Life and Times of Mohamed Morsi. It originates with that other Mohammed. Specifically, it is Sura 5:60 of the Koran, the tome Muslims take to be the immutable, verbatim commands of Allah, as revealed to the prophet. And as Andrew Bostom illustrates (with a disquieting amplitude of examples), the verse is not an outlier. It states an Islamic leitmotif.

Contrary to the fairy tale weaved by apologists for Islamists on both sides of America’s political aisle, Jew hatred is not a pathogen insidiously injected into Islam by the Nazis (with whom Middle Eastern Muslims enthusiastically aligned). Nor did the ummah come by it through exposure to other strains of anti-Semitism that blight the history of Christendom. Jew hatred is ingrained in Islamic doctrine. Consequently, despite the efforts of enlightened Muslim reformers, Jew hatred is — and will remain — a pillar of Islamist ideology.

You may recall hearing this little ditty from the Hamas charter — often echoed by ministers of the Palestinian Authority and in the preachments of Brotherhood jurist Yusuf al-Qaradawi, on whose every word millions hang weekly on al-Jazeera (or is it al-Gore?):

The Day of Resurrection will not arrive until the Muslims make war against the Jews and kill them, and until a Jew hiding behind a rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: “Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!”

Again, these are not sentiments dreamt up by “violent extremists” waging a modern, purely political “resistance” against oppressive “Zionists.” The prophet’s admonition that Muslims will be spared the hellfire by killing Jews is repeated in numerous authoritative hadiths (see, e.g., Sahih Muslim Book 41, No. 6985; Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, No. 791).

Hadiths, it is worth emphasizing, are the recorded actions and instructions of Mohammed, who is taken by Muslims to be the “perfect example” they are to emulate. And in case you suppose, after years of listening to Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama, that the prophet must ultimately have come around on the Jews, you might want to rethink that one. Another hadith, relating Mohammed’s dying words, recounts his final plea: “May Allah curse the Jews and the Christians.” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, No. 427.)

Now of course, none of this is to say that it is impossible for Islam to evolve beyond anti-Semitism. As individuals, millions of Muslims want no part of the ancient hatreds. As scholars and activists, a number of Muslim reformers admirably endeavor to erase this legacy by limiting it to its historical context, reducing it to allegory, or casting doubt on its provenance. Let’s hope these efforts eventually bear fruit. After all, as noted above, anti-Semitism stains the West’s legacy, too; and as discussed in this space before, the history of Christianity in America is a history of evolving beyond punishments and practices akin to those we today presume to look down our noses at as if we were total strangers to invidious discrimination and assaults on freedom of speech and conscience. 

Nevertheless, the humility with which we must acknowledge this history is not an excuse for failing to grapple with what it means. Elite Western opinion came to condemn what it once practiced by correctly reasoning that those noxious practices cut against the grain of our guiding doctrine, which is predominantly Christian. Evolution was in no way easy, but it was logical.

In Islam, to the contrary, the doctrine itself is the most daunting barrier against evolution. And now, with the self-defeating encouragement of the West, Islamic-supremacist ideology has, throughout the Middle East, broken out of the shackles that kept it in check. The result of this “democratization” (the regnant euphemism for sharia installed by popular vote) is an increasingly rabid rise of intolerance.

The answer to this challenge is to take the Islamists head-on. It is to show them for what they truly are: enemies of civil rights, totalitarian tormentors of women and non-Muslims. The answer is not to arm them — as the Obama administration, with the maddening support of some leading Republicans, is arming Morsi’s regime — with a score of F-16 fighter jets and a couple of hundred Abrams tanks.

When not manufacturing history, tears, and indignation this week during her long-overdue testimony on the Benghazi massacre, outgoing secretary of state Hillary Clinton stunned careful listeners by repeatedly mentioning the “global jihad” against America. These were stark violations of Obama-administration strictures against any reference to Islam in discussions of the threat to the West.

They also marked quite a departure for Mrs. Clinton. She has played no small part in propagating the “Islamophobia” canard. She has championed the imposition of sharia blasphemy standards on speech that is protected by the First Amendment. And, with an assist from Senator John McCain, she has cowed 99 percent of Beltway Republicans into silence over the longstanding ties of her top adviser, Huma Abedin, to the Muslim Brotherhood and to an al-Qaeda financier, Abdullah Omar Naseef, whose now-defunct “charity” (the Rabita Trust) was designated as a global terrorist organization under American law. Who knows: Maybe someday, after enough F-16 transfers and sharia constitutions, Charles Krauthammer will be moved to a fleeting mention of these irrefutable facts, making it socially acceptable for our heroes to come out from under their desks and talk about the national-security implications. I can dream, can’t I?

In the Clinton tradition, there was more calculated confusion than clarity in the secretary’s meandering testimony. Mrs. Clinton frets over the “jihadists” but insists that we must be able to “partner” with the region’s Islamists . . . like Morsi and the Brotherhood. Do you suppose she’s noticed that the Muslim Brotherhood demands the release of the Blind Sheikh, just like al-Qaeda does? That Morsi and Hamas (the Brotherhood’s Palestinian terror branch) publicly yearn for the destruction of Israel, just like al-Qaeda does? That the Brotherhood’s top priority is the imposition of sharia, the same imperative that drives al-Qaeda’s rampage?

Alas, this is not a series of strange coincidences. These are the major points that define a Muslim — violent or nonviolent — as an Islamist. When you “partner” with Islamists, you are abetting the global jihad, not opposing it. When you arm Islamists, you become a willing participant in your own undoing. 

 Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the executive director of the Philadelphia Freedom Center. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, which was published by Encounter Books.



Bungle In The Jungle - Jethro Tull

Walking through forests of palm tree apartments ---
scoff at the monkeys who live in their dark tents
down by the waterhole --- drunk every Friday ---
eating their nuts --- saving their raisins for Sunday.
Lions and tigers who wait in the shadows ---
they're fast but they're lazy, and sleep in green meadows.
 Let's bungle in the jungle --- well, that's all right by me.
I'm a tiger when I want love,
but I'm a snake if we disagree.
 Just say a word and the boys will be right there:
with claws at your back to send a chill through the night air.
Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder?
Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder.
I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.''
This game that we animals play is a winner.
Let's bungle in the jungle --- well, that's all right by me.
I'm a tiger when I want love,
but I'm a snake if we disagree.
The rivers are full of crocodile nasties
and He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
He's a lover of life but a player of pawns ---
yes, the King on His sunset lies waiting for dawn
to light up His Jungle
as play is resumed.
The monkeys seem willing to strike up the tune.