The question that anti-Israel activists find very hard to answer

When I am engaged in Twitter debate with a 'pro-Palestinian' who in reality is anti-Israel and maybe anti-Semitic as well, I have found that they will not/cannot answer the following question (this is not Twitter, so I have extended the question beyond 140 characters for ease of reading and to make it rather easier to read).

You say that Israel should return to its pre 1967 'borders'. If the Muslim countries that attacked Israel in 1948, 1967 & 1973 had succeeded in vastly reducing the size of Israel and had only been stopped from completely destroying it by America, would you be calling for Israel to be increased in size back to its 1948 size?

Oddly I have never received even one answer to this question, I wonder why?

Papiss Cisse and his religious sensibilities

When the news broke that Newcastle striker, and occasional member of my fantasy football team two seasons ago, Papass Cisse was refusing to wear his Newcastle FC top if it carried the logo of their main sponsor Wonga.com (the payday loans company), I was not inclined to cover the story. If Papass Cisse has religious principles that he is not prepared to break then that is his concern and if that means that there is an issue over the sponsor's logo on his shirt well then he can refund Wonga 1/11 of their sponsorship, or similar; or alternatively move club. I did get a little fed up of the amount of coverage the story was receiving on BBC 5Live but then it was an opportunity for that station to praise the principles of a Muslim and also attack a loan company at the same time.

However the news then broke that Papass Cisse had been spotted in a casino and that the casino said he was an 'occasional visitor'. I don't know if Papass Cisse bets when he's in the casino but I'm not sure that's relevant, if he won't wear a Wonga shirt because of his Muslim religious principles then visiting a casino should also be out of the question.

Barack hypocrite Obama

What The F*** Memes (@WhatTheFMemes) tweeted at 8:06 PM on Fri, Jun 14, 2013:
The irony http://t.co/ou0JVfa0W7
(https://twitter.com/WhatTheFMemes/status/345618239264546817)

Barack Obama 2006 and 2013

2006

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I have no doubt that General Hayden will be confirmed. But I am going to reluctantly vote against him to send a signal to this administration that even in these circumstances, even in these trying times, President Bush is not above the law. No President is above the law. I am voting against Mr. Hayden in the hope that he will be more humble before the great weight of responsibility that he has not only to protect our lives but to protect our democracy.
Americans fought a Revolution in part over the right to be free from unreasonable searches–to ensure that our Government could not come knocking in the middle of the night for no reason. We need to find a way forward to make sure we can stop terrorists while protecting the privacy and liberty of innocent Americans. We have to find a way to give the President the power he needs to protect us, while making sure he does not abuse that power. It is possible to do that. We have done it before. We could do it again.

2013
Watch here.
U.S. President Obama staunchly defends U.S. government programs conducting surveillance of Americans' phone and Internet activity


Do I hear 'hypocrite'?
Do you trust Barack Obama and his cabal to strike the right balance?

A tale of two hearts

The tale of two hearts is a fascinating study of the contrasts between Islamist savagery and Israeli compassion. Read it here http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-tale-of-two-hearts/


Almost more noteworthy is this extract from the same piece:

'There are of course many Arabs and Muslims who reject this culture of death. Many do so in words. Some have done so in powerful deeds. In March 1997, for example, a Jordanian soldier – Corporal Ahmed Daqamseh – opened fire on a group of Israeli schoolgirls visiting the Jordanian border. He killed seven schoolgirls and wounded six others before his rifle jammed.

A few days after the attack, King Hussein of Jordan did something extraordinary. He travelled to Israel to express his remorse. He actually knelt down before each of the grieving families. "Your daughter is like my daughter. Your loss is my loss," he told them. At that moment in time, peace – real peace – seemed possible.

Sadly, not all Jordanian's share the late King's heart. Speaking on Al Jazeera in 2001, Daqamseh's mother said, "I am proud of my son. My son did a heroic deed and has pleased Allah and his own conscience." Last month, over ninety percent of the members of the Jordanian Parliament – 110 out of 120 – signed a petition calling Daqamesh a "hero" and demanding a special pardon to release him.'

Which side are you on? Peace and compassion or war and hatred?

Muslim writer touts Israeli tolerance of minorities

The apartheid state of Israel exposed!

"This country does not fit the description of an apartheid state," says author Qanta Ahmed in visit to Israel.

British author Dr. Qanta Ahmed spoke on Wednesday at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem about the difficulties for minorities in Islamic societies and how Israel is the only country in the Middle East that tolerates them.

...

Ahmed is a British sleep-disorder specialist working in New York State, whose parents came from Pakistan after moving there from India.

She visited Israel for the first time and gave a lecture at the symposium on Wednesday evening dealing with radicalization and minority persecution in the Islamic world.

The rise of political Islam that has been particularly pronounced as a result of the Arab uprisings is a threat to minorities and to Muslims who do not agree with the ascendent radical ideology, Ahmed said.

The persecution of Christians and other minorities is not getting the attention it deserves from the mainstream media, she said, adding that only a Muslim like her can get away with criticizing Islamic societies without being castigated as a bigot.

Israel does not fit the description of an apartheid state and instead, the media ignores the real problem, which is in the Muslim world, she said.

Illustrating this point, she said that it was only when she went to enter al-Aksa Mosque that she was asked to prove she was a Muslim in order to enter. She did so by reciting the shahada – the Muslim declaration of faith, that states there is one God and that Muhammad is his prophet.

“This is the first time I gave this talk in the Middle East and the only place in the region where I can give this talk and go home afterwards,” Ahmed said. She added that the boycott of next month’s President’s Conference in Jerusalem by British scientist Stephen Hawking is misplaced as he never boycotted Pakistan despite its deplorable human rights record, including its persecution of minorities.'

More here at JPost

Hypocrisy?

Do as she says, not as she does

Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, recently blamed Greece's economic woes on Greece having a population ‘who are trying to escape tax all the time’. This is fair comment, however Christine Lagarde is paid a salary of £298,926 under an employment contract which states that it ‘shall be net of income taxes’. In addition to this enormous tax-free income, Christine Lagarde is also paid by the IMF an additional tax-free sum of £53,490; ‘to enable the Fund’s leader to maintain, in the interests of the Fund, a scale of living appropriate to your position as managing director and to the Fund’s need for representation’. On top of that Christine Lagarde is entitled to expenses for ‘entertainment’ and travel and hotel costs for her and her partner when the IMF meets in Washington DC. Oh and on top of all of that in a time of economic crisis, her five year contract also entitles her to a pay increase every July.

Who said 'hypocrite'?

More lefty hypocrisy as they scream down with big corporations

Ah the swett sound, sight and smell of lefty hypocrisy!


Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

The great smell of eco-hypocrisy

From 2009 we read that:

'Lord Turner suggested that Britons might have to cut back on their overseas breaks.

He said the Government should urgently consider imposing individual restrictions to help reduce pollution caused by planes.

Lord Turner, chairman of Parliament's climate change committee, said: 'We will have to constrain demand in an absolute sense, with people not allowed to make as many journeys as they could in an unconstrained manner.''

In 2011 we read in The Telegraph (although oddly not online) that Lord Turner has spent an average of more than £4,500 a month on international air travel.

'The FSA usually bans its executives from flying in anything but economy class, but Lord Turner has secured an exemption.

...

... embarrassing as he is charged with both cutting carbon emissions and reining in the excessive behaviour in the City. Flying in first class creates double the carbon emissions of cheaper seats.'

Hmmmm

Is Robert Redford a hypocrite?

Hot Air have the story but here's the video to give you an idea...

Religious/Media Hypocrisy

Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

Do as they say, not as they do!

While the Cancun delegates tell us that we will have to cut back so as to save the planet, I see that the delegates are having a high old time in Cancun.



I wonder if the BBC are interested in this story; no I don't really.

Saint Bono

The BBC's love for the sunglasses wearing U2 front man is well known. His political and environmental views are in line with BBC sentiments and so he gets an easy ride on the BBC. So I was intrigued to read at A Tangled Web that:

'Bono's anti-poverty foundation ONE is under pressure to explain its lavish salaries after it was revealed that only a small percentage of money it raises reaches the needy.

The non-profit organisation set up by the U2 frontman received almost £9.6m in donations in 2008 but handed out only £118,000 to good causes (1.2 per cent).

The figures published by the New York Post also show that £5.1m went towards paying salaries.'

If true, this fact would be astonishing and surely of interest to the BBC's many viewers, listeners and readers; but as of now I can find no report of this news on the BBC. Is Bono really that untouchable to the BBC.

This is not the first time that the shine has been taken off of Saint Bono, almost two years ago the news broke that U2 were avoiding tax by moving their publishing arm to Holland in 2006 as a result of the Irish Government capping tax-free earnings for artists at €250,000. U2 were one of the biggest beneficiaries of the royalties scheme. Now there is nothing illegal about U2 avoiding tax but bearing in mind Bono's predilection for campaigning for an end to world poverty, maybe using a scheme that in total meant that the Irish Exchequer was losing millions of euro might be considered crass.

If a right-wing author or politician had been caught legally avoiding taxation the BBC would be all over the story but when it is a favoured son of the left....

It's 'Mandy' time

Just two Peter Mandelson stories this weekend, but they do, I think, say so much about the man and his motivations.

The first is from The Mail and concerns the

"Anger at Peter Mandelson's £13m plan for ‘minimalist palace’ after he calls for pay restraint"

It seems that:

"With its moody lighting, low-slung sofas and plasma TVs, there is only one Cabinet Minister who would feel truly at home here – this is the £13million new Whitehall ‘palace’ being built for Peter Mandelson.

The Business Secretary’s London HQ – the nerve centre of the ‘empire of Mandelsonia’ – is being given a slick, minimalist refurbishment to reflect
his growing power in Government.

But last night Tory chairman Eric Pickles accused Lord Mandelson of hypocrisy for demanding pay and spending restraint while lavishing funds on his own department. "

How odd to see the word 'hypocrisy' and the name 'Peter Mandelson' in the same article, how very odd. As with most ex and indeed current Marxists, nothing but the best for the members of the politburo.

But it is this part of the article that annoyed me the most as it sums up the wastrel habits of this vile Labour government:

"A Business Department spokesman said: ‘Currently, staff in the department are split between this and a second site – as we are surrendering that site, it is a cost-neutral project.’ "

There you go there is an amount of money to spend and so long as we don't exceed it that's fine. Might a better option have been to consolidate the two offices but not spend £8-£10 million on the office re-fit? Was a cheaper option even considered? I doubt it, after all it's not Peter Mandelson or Gordon Brown's money their future income is safe and the massive tax increases will hardly dent Peter Mandelson's enormous EU pension.


The second article is from The Times and concerns the believable claims that

"Gordon Brown is facing demands to make Lord Mandelson foreign secretary in a row that risks tearing apart his government.

The business secretary is secretly pressing Brown to hold a cabinet reshuffle so he can achieve his life-long ambition of running the Foreign Office. Mandelson made the request after he was snubbed for the post of European Union foreign minister at last week’s Brussels summit.

Mandelson’s reshuffle call puts the prime minister in a perilous position as he struggles to retain the support of the most powerful figures in the cabinet.

If he bows to Mandelson’s wishes, he risks alienating David Miliband, the foreign secretary, and his ally Ed Balls, the schools secretary, who is still eager for promotion. If he refuses Mandelson’s demand, he risks losing his loyalty with potentially devastating consequences for the election."

Peter Mandelson scheming for advancement in public office, who would have thought it? Is the UK really ready for an unelected Prime Minister with a twice disgraced and now unelected Foreign Secretary; and don't forget the never elected Baroness Ashton as the EU high representative. Democracy Labour style - makes you sick doesn't it?

Is this man serious - Tom Harris, MP

Tom Harris is a Labour blogger who I have little time for at the best of times but his piece on Daniel Hannan today cannot be left uncommented upon.

Here's the offending passage, can you spot the hypocrisy?

"What was truly repugnant about his speech was the total absence of any sense of patriotism. Some Tories on the extreme right of the party share the problem of some Republicans in the States: they don’t regard the head of government to be the nation’s leader unless he or she is also a member of their little party.

Gordon Brown isn’t just Labour’s prime minister; he’s Britain’s prime minister, and for any UK politician to launch such a disgraceful, personal attack on his country’s leader — in a foreign country — is nothing short of disgraceful."

Just remind me how much respect the Labour party gave to Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister. It's odd how the "left" expect the "right" to just "suck it up" when events go against them but are less happy when the boot is on the other foot (apologies for the very mixed metaphors there).

Where should Daniel Hannan have made this attack? Surely making it on the floor of the European Parliament is showing how EU democracy works.

Does Tom Harris believe that Gordon Brown should be protected from any criticism at all times. After all Gordon Brown's team successfully cleared his path of any opposition to ensure a smooth, unopposed succession to the position of Prime Minister and have mostly ensured that media criticism has (until recently) been muted.

Would Tom Harris prefer it if it was illegal to criticise Prime Minister Gordon Brown or to vote for anyone other than Gordon Brown within the Labour party. Would Tom Harris prefer it if it was illegal to vote for any party other than the Labour party.

"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Would Tom Harris see that type of "system" as preferable to free speech?

Do as we say, not as we do (part xx)

Labour government hypocrisy over HIPS, apparently and not totally surprisingly:

"The former grace and favour home of David Blunkett has been advertised for sale without a Home Information Pack, in direct contravention of the Government's own proposed rules."

Why the surprise? Surely everyone realises that this Labour government makes the rules but doesn't intend to be bound by them - Only the little people pay taxes/follow the rules.

Do as we say, not as we do

The often wonderful Trixie has some videos of our betters enjoying a cigarette in a bar, but that's OK because it's a bar in the Houses of Parliament and smoking is allowed there as the buildings were exempted from the ban on smoking in public places. Don't you just love the smell of hypocrisy?

Barack Obama Campaign (update)

Further to my piece yesterday about the Cuban flag and picture of Che Guevara on Barack Obama's Texas campaign office wall, I see that the culprit has been probably identified as Ms. Maria Isabel and it appears that she may be a hypocrite, why am I not surprised...

The BBC allow some criticism of Gordon Brown but then revert to type

BBC Three, "The Most Annoying People of the Year" tonight, places Gordon Brown at number 39 and slates him for "dithering", "being scared" and for having "bottled it". We are also told that in 2007 Gordon Brown got really good at getting on our nerves.

Of course the BBC still managed to be nasty about Lady Thatcher though with talk of how even Gordon Brown must have been nasty to Lady Thatcher behind the closed doors of Number 10, I believe throwing food and having her wiped down before sending her out of the front door. In fact I doubt if Gordon Brown was as nasty to Lady Thatcher's face as his previous record would suggest. Gordon Brown invited Lady Thatcher to tea so he could wind up the Conservative party and its supporters. He was probably nice and polite to her face because that is the sort of hypocrite he is.