Absurdistan

'conservative' is not a synonyme for 'idiot'

0 notes

ISIS is Barack Obama’s mess and now he wants Canada’s help

ISIS is Barack Obama’s mess.

He made it and now he wants our help to clean it up. What do Canadians owe him?

He’s turned his back on allies such as Israel, having proven himself a bigger friend to the likes of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood than to the Jewish state.

He’s no friend of Canada’s.

Instead of working with his friends, he’s tried in vain to appease such longtime enemies as Iran.

His rush to pull out of Iraq without leaving a reserve force behind has led to the disaster we see unfolding there now.

Now Obama needs allies to battle ISIS and help him save face. So who is stepping up to the plate? The Iranians? The Saudis? Hardly.

Yes, when things get really bad, he calls on the same allies he’s spent his entire presidency snubbing.

The Canadians, the Brits, the Australians, etc.

Forgive me if I don’t exactly jump for joy at the prospect of helping this disastrous president ahead of midterm elections when his party is facing a well deserved drubbing.

He’s the one who insisted on leaving Iraq unprotected against the advice of those who said the U.S. should leave a reserve military force behind to support that country.

Did he listen to advisers?

Of course not!

Obama is much too smart to take the advice of anybody but himself and a few of his cronies. So he pulled out completely for political reasons, not because he failed to cut a deal with the Iraqi government, which wanted a U.S. force to stay.

Now, at last word, ISIS fighters were bearing down on Baghdad and Obama’s poll numbers are in freefall ahead of the U.S. midterm elections.

According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, even women are abandoning this president in droves over his handling of foreign affairs. Only 37% approved of his actions on the file in that poll.

And so there is little doubt, this president is responding, not out of any sense of what’s right, but of pure politics.

We need to see this president for the political opportunist he is.

Regardless, Canada appears ready to play some kind of role in a coalition of the barely willing. According to some analysts, it’s a mission that could require two or three years in order to push the jihadis from the region.

Obama screwed up big time. The world is paying the price because he preferred to play golf rather than to be a leader.

He has shown precious little regard for Canadians, demonstrating nothing but disdain on the Keystone XL project.

Remind me again what Canadians owe this president?

Obama needs a coalition to help him sell the idea of military intervention to the same far left crackpot wing of the Democratic party that he attempted to please by pulling out of Iraq in the first place.

But fine. We’re Canadians. We’re loyal friends even to people who take us for granted and treat us so shabbily.

But our loyalty should be to the American people, not to its government and especially not to the president.

We also have a duty to the world community to do our part to destroy ISIS; to kill every last one of the vile, scum-of-the-earth, murderers who have caused so much misery in the world.

The fact Obama may gain politically is an unfortunate byproduct but it doesn’t make the mission wrong.

Perhaps there is a silver lining in seeing this debacle unfold south of the border.

Canadians will hopefully learn from the colossal mistake Americans made electing Obama.

We might avoid making a similar blunder elevating Justin Trudeau to the highest office in the land.

When unqualified, inexperienced, style-over-substance people such as Obama and Trudeau are elected to run a country, don’t be surprised when they deliver misery and failure.

Source

Filed under canada obama isis military war

1 note

hobbiagysebesz:

nem tudom, megvolt-e eddig, hogy a palesztin nagykövetet Marie Antoinette-nek hívják

Az megvan, hogy a nemlétező Palesztína nevű űllamnak nagykövete van?

hobbiagysebesz:

nem tudom, megvolt-e eddig, hogy a palesztin nagykövetet Marie Antoinette-nek hívják

Az megvan, hogy a nemlétező Palesztína nevű űllamnak nagykövete van?

3 notes

- Barátaim, reménytelen helyzetben is harcoló felkelők! - kiáltotta Skywalker parancsnok. Szolidarítsunk a Halálcsillagon szolgáló és csoportos leépítés áldozatául esett birodalmi rohamosztagosokkal!
- Ön hülye, uram? - kérdezte Threepeo. - Nem érzi, hogy bemocskolja az áldozatok emlékét?
(via orulunkvincent)

24 notes

Neil deGrasse Tyson and the Metaphysical Dilemma of the Left

poorrichardsnews:

Do you even science, bro? That’s a typical leftist response to anyone who dares question the “consensus.” I’ve heard this phenomenon called scientism because it’s certainly not science. Science encourages rational thought and debate and doesn’t ignore data that are, for lack of a better term, inconvenient. But the faithful devotees of scientism do the exact opposite. How did it get this way? This fantastic article in the Federalist has a very plausible explanation. Here’s a sample:

The recent Neil deGrasse Tyson kerfuffle and the dogmatic defense of the global warming consensus raises the question: what’s the impetus? Why do people feel the need to proclaim themselves so loudly as the pro-science side of the debate and to write off all opponents as anti-science? What makes scientists so susceptible to a cultural vogue like global warming and so willing to be dismissive of evidence that contradicts their theory?

…Given the size, breadth, and intensity of the global warming vogue and the pro-science pose of its supporters, it must answer some profound need, some crisis of the soul.

It is needed because the left is fundamentally reactionary.

…you’re going to look around, see all this heedless profit-seeking, and conclude that it must be evil in some way and it must be leading to evil consequences. So you will lend an eager ear to anyone who claims to validate your moral suspicions about capitalism.

In the first go-around, these anti-capitalists tried to capture the science of economics, forming theories about how capitalism is a system of exploitation that will impoverish the common man, while scientific central planning would provide abundance for all.

Let’s just say that this didn’t work out. When it turned out that central planning impoverishes the common man and capitalism provides abundance for all, they had to switch to a fallback position. Which is: to heck with prosperity—too many material goods are the problem. Our greed for more is destroying the planet by causing environmental catastrophes. This shift became official some time in the 1960s with the rise of the New Left.

Some of the catastrophes didn’t pan out (overpopulation, global cooling) and others proved too small to be anything more than a speed bump in the path of capitalism (banning CFCs and DDT). But then along comes global warming—and it’s just too good not to be true. It tells us that capitalism is not just exploiting the workers or causing inequality or deadening our souls with crass materialism. It’s destroying the very planet itself.

It has to do with faith. Human beings must believe in something, for some reason. But the left abandoned God.

The newly created world without God turned out to be just another faith, and created another religion. And as every other religion, the Left Religion has its own prophets, dogmas, saints, priests and sacred scripts.

Think of “Human Rights”, “Gay Rights” or “Global Warming”. They have become dogmas, each having its own Apostles. 

A dogma, by default, requires no explanation. In fact, it must just be believed and recited without consideration. At a certain point, nobody asks if the text has any meaning anymore and if it does, what is it. It is quite the opposite: if you question the dogma, you are a heretic and/or an enemy.  

And this is what happened to the once important and meaningful discussions on gays, climate or human rights. They have become the very fundaments of the Left Religion. Try to debate or discuss any of these “issues” with a leftist. It won’t work, the dogmas are not there to be debated.

The Left, being a religion, needs believers, not voters. But state and church have been separated for a long time. So dear Left, get to of politics, go back to your churches.

Filed under left politics religion global warming dogma

5 notes

Defeating Death and Consensus vs. Command

eretzyisrael:

image

by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

To understand it, recall the famous remark of Sherlock Holmes. “I draw your attention,” he said to Dr Watson, “to the curious incident of the dog at night.” “But the dog did nothing at night,” said Watson. “That,” said Holmes, “is the curious incident.” Sometimes to know what a book is about you need to focus on what it does not say, not just on what it does.

What is missing from the Torah, almost inexplicably so given the background against which it is set, is a fixation with death. The ancient Egyptians were obsessed with death. Their monumental buildings were an attempt to defy death. The pyramids were giant mausoleums. More precisely, they were portals through which the soul of a deceased pharaoh could ascend to heaven and join the immortals. The most famous Egyptian text that has come down to us is The Book of the Dead. Only the afterlife is real: life is a preparation for death.

There is nothing of this in the Torah, at least not explicitly. Jews believed in olam haba, the world to come, life after death. They believed in techiyat hametim, the resurrection of the dead. There are six references to it in the second paragraph of the Amidah alone. But not only are these ideas almost completely absent from Tanakh. They are absent at the very points where we would expect them.

The book of Kohelet/Ecclesiastes is an extended lament at human mortality. Havel havalim hakol havel: Everything is worthless because life is a mere fleeting breath. Why did the author of Ecclesiastes not mention the world to come and life-after-death? The book of Job is a sustained protest against the apparent injustice of the world. Why did no one answer Job: “You and other innocent people who suffer will be rewarded in the afterlife”? We believe in the afterlife. Why then is it not mentioned – merely hinted at – in the Torah? That is the curious incident.

The simple answer is that obsession with death ultimately devalues life. Why fight against the evils and injustices of the world if this life is only a preparation for the world to come? Ernest Becker in his classic The Denial of Death  argues that fear of our own mortality has been one of the driving forces of civilization. It is what led the ancient world to enslave the masses, turning them into giant labour forces to build monumental buildings that would stand as long as time itself. It led to the ancient cult of the hero, the man who becomes immortal by doing daring deeds on the field of battle. We fear death; we have a love-hate relationship with it. Freud called thisthanatos, the death instinct, and said it was one of the two driving forces of life, the other being eros.

Judaism is a sustained protest against this world-view. That is why “No one knows where Moses is buried” (Deut. 34: 6) so that his tomb should never become a place of pilgrimage and worship. That is why in place of a pyramid or a temple such as Ramses II built at Abu Simbel, all the Israelites had for almost five centuries until the days of Solomon was the mishkan, a portable sanctuary, more like a tent than a temple. That is why, in Judaism, death defiles and why the rite of the Red Heifer was necessary to purify people from contact with it. That is why the holier you are – if you are a cohen, more so if you are the High Priest – the less you can be in contact or under the same roof as a dead person. God is not in death but in life.

Only against this Egyptian background can we fully sense the drama behind words that have become so familiar to us that we are no longer surprised by them, the great words in which Moses frames the choice for all time:

See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil … I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that you and your children may live.
(Deut. 30: 15, 19)

Life is good, death is bad. Life is a blessing, death is a curse. These are truisms for us. Why even mention them? Because they were not common ideas in the ancient world. They were revolutionary. They still are.

How then do you defeat death? Yes there is an afterlife. Yes there is techiyat hametim, resurrection. But Moses does not focus on these obvious ideas. He tells us something different altogether. You achieve immortality by being part of a covenant – a covenant with eternity itself, that is to say, a covenant with God.

When you live your life within a covenant something extraordinary happens. Your parents and grandparents live on in you. You live on in your children and grandchildren. They are part of your life. You are part of theirs. That is what Moses meant when he said, near the beginning of this week’s parsha:

It is not with you alone that I am making this covenant and oath, but with whoever stands with us here today before the Lord our God as well as those not with us here today. (Deut. 29: 13-14)

In Moses’ day that last phrase meant “your children not yet born.” He did not need to include “your parents, no longer alive” because their parents had themselves made a covenant with God forty years before at Mount Sinai. But what Moses meant in a larger sense is that when we renew the covenant, when we dedicate our lives to the faith and way of life of our ancestors, they become immortal in us, as we become immortal in our children.

It is precisely because Judaism focuses on this world, not the next, that it is the most child-centred of all the great religions. They are our immortality. That is what Rachel meant when she said, “Give me children, or else I am like one dead” (Gen. 30: 1). It is what Abraham meant when he said, “Lord, God, what will you give me if I remain childless?” (Gen. 15: 2). We are not all destined to have children. The rabbis said that the good we do constitutes our toledot, our posterity. But by honouring the memory of our parents and bringing up children to continue the Jewish story we achieve the one form of immortality that lies this side of the grave, in this world that God pronounced good.

Read complete Parashat here.

Filed under parashat life death judaism child childre