Posts Tagged ‘Hardball’

Liberals: ‘It’s Okay To Burn The Bible, Just PLEASE Don’t Burn The Holy Koran’

April 5, 2011

This is just another example of the breathtaking liberal ignorance and moral stupidity of the mainstream media.

We’ve got Time Magazine world editor Bobby Ghosh explaining on MSNBC’s “Hardball” that burning a copy of the Qur’an was “much more inflammatory than burning a Bible” because of the greater spiritual significance of the Qur’an.

Here is a transcript via Mediaite:

GHOSH: The thing to keep in mind that`s very important here is that the Koran to Muslims, it is not — it is not the same as the Bible to Christians.

The Bible is a book written by men. It is acknowledged by Christians that it is written by men. It`s the story of Jesus.

TODD: Yes.

GHOSH: But the Koran, if you are a believer, if you`re a Muslim, the Koran is directly the word of God, not written by man. It is transcribed, is directly the word of God.

That makes it sacred in a way that it`s hard to understand if you`re not Muslim. So the act of burning a Koran is much more — potentially much, much more inflammatory than –

TODD: Directly attacking — directly attacking God.

GHOSH: — than if you were to burn a — burn a Bible.

TODD: Directly attacking God.

If you buy Time Magazine, allow me to correctly label you a DUMBASS.  You’ve got the international editor of Time ignorantly claiming that Christians don’t believe the Bible is “the Word of God,” and you’ve got the MSNBC host first agreeing with him that the Bible is just a book written by men and then trying to help Ghosh make his point by repeatedly saying “Directly attacking God” like some kind of particularly idiotic jihadist-trained parrot.

Muslims do not claim that God wrote the Qur’an and handed it to Mohammed.  Rather, they claim that a human being wrote it under an angel named Gabriel’s direction.

Here are a number of passages – and hardly an exhaustive list by any means – about the Bible:

‘Thy word I have treasured in my heart that I might not sin against Thee’ (Psalm 119:11)

‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’ (Math 4:4).

“The word of God is alive and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword…” (Heb 4:12).

“So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11).

“For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Pet 1:23).

“And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17). 

‘All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work’ (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

I want you to carefully note that NONE of these passages is speaking about Allah or the Qur’an.  In fact, neither existed yet.  Muhammad had not yet been born to invent him and pirate Judaism and Christianity to fabricate his own religion.  And the doctrine of the inspiration of the Holy Bible is merely one of the things that Muhammad pirated.  In addition to Abraham and Jesus, Muhammad frankly even pirated the angel Gabriel whom he claimed dictated the Qur’an to him (Daniel 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:11–19).  They ALL came from the HOLY Bible long before they had anything to do with the Qur’an.

I would submit that, given that the Qur’an plagiarized large portions of the Bible, whereas the writers of the Bible – both the human and the ultimate Divine behind their writings – would regard the Qur’an as incoherent rubbish, it should be rather obvious which of the two is truly “holy” and which is not.

I’ve read the Qu’ran.  It is virtual gibberish.  I couldn’t agree more with Robert Spencer in his description of the Qur’an in The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion:

“reading the Qur’an is in many places like walking in on a conversation between two people with whom one is only slightly acquainted.  When Islamic apologists say terrorists quote the Qur’an on jihad ‘out of context,’ they neglect to mention that the Qur’an itself often offers little context.  Frequently it makes reference to people and events without  bothering to explain what’s going on” (p. 20-21).

And Spencer proceeds to offer an example which proves just how muddy and indecipherable the Qur’an truly is.  Without a vast collection of volumes of very human Islamic tradition called the Haddith, nobody would have any idea of what is being said about what.

The Bible, by contrast, stands on its own.  And the best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible.  Commentaries are certainly useful for helping one understand a few passages here or there.  But with the Qur’an, they are utterly essential for having so much as the vaguest clue.

Do you ever notice how often mainstream media “journalists” who would NEVER refer to the “holy” Bible due to their “journalistic objectivity” invariably bow and scrape before Muslims lest they be murdered for failing to say “the holy Qur’an”???

Is it merely fear, or is it that journalists – who are far more atheist than the general population – agreeing with the most fanatic jihadist Muslims that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  With said common enemy being Judeo-Christianity???

Then there’s the manner in which these “journalists” have tried to create the perception that a crackpot preacher of a tiny church is more guilty of murder than the intolerant religion of hate that just racked up another 21 innocent murder victims.

I mean, who doesn’t go attack a U.N. compound and murder people who had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the thing you claim to be angry about, anyway?

Let me further ridicule the ignorant Time Magazine international editor who stupidly said that Christians don’t mind Bible burning as much because, after all, we don’t think the Bible is God’s book.  How about Jesus versus Muhammad?  Christians don’t just rightly call Jesus “the Word” (John 1:1-3), but they believe Him to be the Son of God, who assumed a human nature to free us from sin and death.  Do Muslims regard Muhammad as God?  As far as I know, they don’t.  And yet guess who didn’t turn into a murderous mob when their God was placed in a jar of urine and called “art” by secular humanist liberals???  If you guessed the same Christians who don’t erupt into a murderous frenzy whenever someone burns a Bible, you win a prize!!!

In other words, the problem isn’t so much that some nutjob burned a Qur’an; the real problem is that Muslims are murderers who can’t control their demonic urge to murder at any provocation.

Some liberals are so completely morally stupid that they think we should turn our backs with a wink and a nod while 1.6 billion Muslims annihilate Israel.  What they stupidly refuse to understand is that Israel is only the “LITTLE” Satan; America is the GREAT Satan.  We’ll have to go too.  Oh, and England will have to go.  And France.  And pretty much all of Western Europe.  And if it’s okay, anyone who doesn’t bow down and confess that Allah is greater, and Muhammad is his prophet.

As Spencer pounts out, Islam is a truly intolerant and violent religion.  Don’t burn our Qur’ans or we’ll riot and murder.  Don’t draw cartoons or we’ll riot and murderDon’t send female journalists to report the news or we’ll gang-rape and riot and murder.  Or at least beat the women with clubs.  And, of course, don’t oppose Islam or we’ll murder your women and children.  It is frankly amazing how “journalists” who claim to stand for free spech and free expression will so willingly if not eagerly censor themselves in the face of fundamentalist Islamic intolerance while so “courageously” attacking peaceful Christians and the Judeo-Christian worldview that made free speech and freedom of expression possible in the first place.

If you’re reading Time Magazine or watching MSNBC, you are trusting abject moral morons to inform you about the world.  And it’s frankly little wonder you’re so pathetically ignorant.

Finally, there’s Barack Hussein.  He falsely claims that he’s a Christian, but the man who routinely refers to “the holy Koran” has never once used the phrase “the Holy Bible” and has in fact even mocked the Bible in a way that he would never dare do to the Qur’an.

Men like Barack Obama and Bobby Ghosh are cowards and weasels.  And it’s long past time to expose them as such.

Advertisements

Hillary’s Pennsylvania Win Has Media Snivelling

April 23, 2008

Last night’s Democratic primary in Pennsylvania is worth commenting on. A 10-point margin of victory against a candidate who spent three times more in the state is obviously significant.

Why can’t Barack Obama – the candidate of sweeping hope and change – close Hillary Clinton out? It’s a question being taken up by more and more pundits. Obama threw the kitchen sink at Clinton – spending-wise – and ended up with a double-digit loss in a major state. The 200,000 vote margin in Pennsylvania also gives Hillary Clinton a legitimate claim to boast that she has obtained the nationwide popular vote.

Back in 2000, the Democrats mantra was “Every vote should count!” But here we are completely excluding the votes in Florida and Michigan? It’s just part of the self-serving pretzel-logic of the Democratic Party.

Obama has now lost 7 of the 10 biggest states in the country, including all 4 of the major battleground states that could go either Red or Blue in November.

As it stands, there is no no way either candidate can win enough delegates to take the nomination outright. Whoever wins will win because the super delegates hand the election to one or the other. In this race, neither candidate genuinely has the right to claim that the super delegates “owe” their vote to one or the other, precisely because the super delegates aren’t beholden to any specific “rule” that tells them how to vote one way or the other.

The conventional wisdom holds that the super delegates will crown the candidate that has the best chance of winning in November. But who is that? Obama has won twice as many states. But many of those states were awarded by caucuses – a byzantine process very nearly as un-democratic as the super delegate rule itself. Hillary Clinton has won more large states. She won Florida, won California, won Texas, won Ohio, won Pennsylvania. And she has certainly had the recent momentum in the last few major states – but how much of that recent momentum has been her own, and how much was handed to her by Obama’s stumbles? Finally, both candidates are nailing down their respective bases, but both would need to hold on to the other’s base in November in order to have any chance of winning the general election.

And it appears to me, at least, that if either candidate is “snubbed” by the super delegates, well, to coin a movie title, “There Will Be Blood.”

My own sense is that the super delegates will award the nomination to Barack Obama simply because elite liberals, the ideological “Moveon.org”-types, and blacks would raise more of a tantrum than the working-class whites, the seniors, and the women in Hillary’s camp.

In other words, the barometer will ultimately be “PC,” rather than the calculus of “electibility,” that determines the nominee. If I am correct in my assesment, this bodes ill for Democrats: because PC guarantees that the side that gets snubbed will have hard feelings, just as it always has against everyone else on whom it’s been played. There will be lifelong Democrats who will vote for McCain, or simply not vote at all, mark my words.

At times, MSNBC’s Hardball coverage of the election revealed some genuine bitterness over Clinton’s victory.

Keith Olbermann quoted Donna Brazile as saying, There is a group around Senator Clinton that really wants to take the fight to the convention. They don’t care about the party. It scares me, and that’s what scares a lot of superdelegates.

Chris Matthews – on the very same night that Hillary Clinton wins a 10 point victory in a major state – analogizes the Hillary Clinton campaign to the Titanic, and points out that “The iceberg’s name is Barack Obama.”

Tom Brokaw all but wrote Hillary’s campaign obituary, saying she’d go as far as she could before she finally hit the wall.

There was one exchange that I found especially revealing in its “journalistic implications”:

Christ Matthews: It’s not just the Clinton forces continue to change the score sheet and the scoreboard itself, they reserve the right to do it again and again and again.

Tim Russert: Yes. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Terry McAuliffe have one thing they want: Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee. And they’ll use any path that’s available to get there….That’s what it is all about — those are the rules according to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Terry McAuliffe.

Chris Matthews: Mulligan after mulligan after mulligan.

Keith Olbermann: And yes, it really is not just a moving goalpost but the proverbial movable feast of goalposts. You put it anywhere you want. And remember – and the other thing about is, as much as we might look at it with astonishment or you know, amazement maybe that especially in that — that core group of women supporters, that group we mentioned earlier, that is so adherent to Hillary Clinton, this particular action of moving the goalpost, the actual act of redefining the game as it goes along, is perceived as one of her greatest strengths.

Republicans, of course, could have told everyone 16 years ago that the Clintons didn’t care about anybody but the Clintons; that they would deceive, distort, mischaracterize, and use deceptive media tactics that could have come right from the mafia in order to win. But the liberals who loved Clintonian tactics when they were successfully employed against Republicans are suddenly finding that they have no stomach whatever for them when they are employed against someone they like.

Keith Olbermann underscored the media’s fidgeting over the prospect of Democrats mud-wrestling themselves right out of viability, saying, “Yes, I really like the image of superdelegates moving quickly, because, so far, they have been glacier-like, in any respect, in any direction.” Most any other time, of course, journalists love the idea of dirty laundry being constantly hung out for them to sniff. Most of the time, they wouldn’t want anybody to step in and end this endless twisting in the wind. But this fight is clearly different for them.

One writer pointed out on 24 March 2008, “And prominent pundits are saying so. Last Friday, just about an hour after the Richardson endorsement event, two top writers for the Politico, an influential website, posted a news article-cum-editorial arguing, accurately, that Clinton has almost no numerical case to make. Another uber-pundit and conventional-wisdom shaper, this one at Time, posted 14 reasons why Clinton should consider withdrawing. And so it was that the week that began with Obama on the ropes ended with Clinton being urged out of the ring.”

Jonathan Alter of Newsweek offered the objective title, “Hillary Should Get Out Now.”

I particularly like the New York Times editorial for 23 April 2008, “The Low Road to Victory.” Laura Ingraham – rightly – points out that these New York Times people couldn’t get enough dirty laundry out of the Catholic Church, that the continued to demand one mea culpa after another. And they certainly didn’t mind throwing a clearly dirty mud ball at John McCain by all but accusing him of a sexual affair in addition to other illegitimate behavior with a female lobbyist. But now they don’t have the stomach for any more negative news to damage Democratic candidates. They are clearly sorry they endorsed Clinton at this point. They didn’t know who the liberal darling would turn out to be.

The editorial begins, “The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.”

Another inconclusive result?” A 10 point victory? These people have clearly become unhinged over the Democratic campaign. And they couldn’t show their bias much more nakedly.

And it ends: “It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.”

In other words, PLEASE, OH PLEASE PLEASE, WON’T SOMEBODY STOP THIS UNDERMINING OF OUR BELOVED DEMOCRATS? WE OBJECTIVE JOURNALISTS JUST CAN’T STAND IT ANYMORE!”

But I close with the extremely relevant question of MSNBC anchor, Joe Scarborough, who said on last night’s Hardball: “Hey, Harold [Ford], let’s pretend we’re in the Democratic cloakroom. We are two uncommitted superdelegates and we just found out Barack Obama lost Pennsylvania. We are talking and I say to you hey, man, I’m concerned about this guy. He’s been in Pennsylvania for seven weeks. He has had $9 million, he’s crushed Hillary Clinton as far as the ad wars go. But he can’t close the deal. He can win now, and we are in a Democratic cloakroom, I would then say those Republican bastards are going to kill him in the fall. What do we do?

Indeed.