Reflections From a Murky Pond

The Muslim Brotherhood’s primary US cell, CAIR wants an end to “Islamists” – not the actual Islamists, mind you, just the use of that word by anyone, especially the press. Their ranting and raving mouthpiece, Ibrahim Hooper made it clear they CAIR wants “Islamist” banned in public discourse because there are rarely any positive references to Islamist in news articles”.

Firstly, the only thing involving this Muslim vermin, Ibrahim Hooper that should ever be in the news is the joyous announcement of it’s extermination. But, since I haven’t gotten to him, and others who have more opportunity seem too weak to do what is right, we’re forced to hear or read this incestuous pig-fucker’s jabberings.

As many people make promises to themselves to improve their lives or their societies in the coming year, here is a suggested New Year’s resolution for media outlets in America and worldwide: Drop the term “Islamist.”

The Associated Press (AP) added the term to its influential Stylebook in 2012. That entry reads: “Islamist — Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.”

The AP says it sought input from Arabic-speaking experts and hoped to provide a neutral perspective by emphasizing the “wide range” of religious views encompassed in the term.

Many Muslims who wish to serve the public good are influenced by the principles of their faith. Islam teaches Muslims to work for the welfare of humanity and to be honest and just. If this inspiration came from the Bible, such a person might well be called a Good Samaritan. But when the source is the Quran, the person is an “Islamist.”

Unfortunately, the term “Islamist” has become shorthand for “Muslims we don’t like.” It is currently used in an almost exclusively pejorative context and is often coupled with the term “extremist,” giving it an even more negative slant.

There are few, if any, positive references to “Islamist” in news articles.

I would hope this little rant of Hoopers would sound familiar to the peoples of the Civilized World as it is nothing but yet another paraphrasing of the IOC’s ongoing attempt to make criticizing Islam a crime. I would also hope that this is a case where familiarity breeds contempt, loathing, and swift reprisal against both the speaker and those it claims to speak for.

For those who think my response to a “simple request” seems extreme, let me remind that CAIR rarely just asks for anything. Any “request” by them must be, given their history of paper terrorism against people who criticize Islam for its subhuman evil, seen as nothing less than a legal preamble or preparatory step for lawfare.

~*~

I will remind each and every American that warfare trumps lawfare; attorneys who take cases against Americans’ rights are valid targets; and that neither legal briefs nor judge’s robes will stop a well-aimed bullet.

Tags: 1st Amendment | America | Free Speech | Genocide | Holy War | Ibrahim Hooper | IOC | Islam | Islamists | Jihad | Law | Lawfare | Muslim Brotherhood | Muslims | Paper Terrorism | Politics | Terrorism | Terrorists | Vermin

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 6th, 2013 at 11:19 am and is filed under Politics, Religion, Society. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

President Obama and his family, and a large retinue – with Oprah Winfrey and Chicago’s Mayor, Richard Daley, tagging along – put critical foreign and domestic issues on hold to travel to Copenhagen, Denmark to convince, cajole, or coerce the International Olympic Committee (IOC) into granting the 2016 Summer Olympic Games to the crime-ridden and economically depressed city of Chicago, IL.  They failed.

From the St. Louis Business Journal:

Chicago is out as a host city for the summer Olympics in 2016.

The International Olympic Committee gave Chicago the boot in its first round of voting Friday in Copenhagen.

My fellow Americans, the Ego has landed – face down and in failure.

The IOC voted Chicago out of the running mere hours after President Obama’s plea, which the 100-plus committee members sat through in silence.  Air Force One was actually still in the air when OIC’s verdict against the Obamas’ adopted home was rendered.

Apparently the First Lady, Michelle Obama’s delegation to the IOC had been doing quite well and things were looking good for Chicago … and then her husband put aside supposedly leading the Free World and flew across the Atlantic Ocean to give yet another self-involved speech.

The president anchored the U.S. charm offensive.

He referenced his own election as a moment when people from around the world gathered in Chicago to see the results last November and celebrate that “our diversity could be a source of strength.”

“There is nothing I would like more than to step just a few blocks from my family’s home and with Michelle and our two girls welcome the world back to our neighborhood,” Obama said. “At the beginning of this new century, the nation that has been shaped by people from around the world wants a chance to inspire it once more.”

After the Obamas’ comments, the U.S. delegation fielded questions from committee members, and at one point the president jumped in. He said he envisioned that the Chicago games would allow the United States to restore its image as a place that, at its best, is “open to the world.”

Perhaps President Obama should have stayed at work and let the First Lady handle things in Denmark; Chicago might have gotten the 2016 Summer Games then. Obviously a speech and commentary that boiled down to something disturbingly close to, “My election made America good again,” and “Give a Brotha a Chance!” didn’t work out so well for America this time.

Tags: 2016 Olympics | Chicago | Daley | Denmark | Hubris | Illinois | IOC | Obama | Oprah | Politics

This entry was posted on Friday, October 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm and is filed under 2016 Olympics, Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), when asked if he regretted awarding the 2008 Olympics to China, admitted that it had not been a wise and a sound decision.

I’ve said that it is very easy with hindsight to criticize the decision. It’s easy to say now that this was not a wise and a sound decision.

— Jacques Rogge
IOC President

Yet Rogge defended himself by claiming that Beijing had “clearly the best bid” and offered the strong incentive of taking the Olympics to a country with 20% of the world’s total population.

This is a total load of bullshit! The only way that China had the best bid would be if criteria other than the IOC’s own Applicant City Evaluation Report was not only considered but weighed far more heavily than those official evaluations.

Tags: 2008 Olympics | China | IOC

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 10th, 2008 at 4:43 pm and is filed under 2008 Olympics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

I’ve performed some research on China’s bid for the 2008 Olympic Games. Below are my findings on the accuracy of Rogge claiming that had “clearly the best bid.“

Applicant City Evaluation Report Results From August 2000

According to these scores China was only the top contender in one category – their proposed Olympic Village. Overall China had the 2nd lowest composite score (37.1). Paris achieved the highest composite score (42.2). China also had the 2nd lowest Average Score (7.41), an average of the individual scores in each IOC category, whereas Paris once again had the higest score (8.44).

With Paris not only having the highest overall and average scores, but also having earned the highest individual scores in: General Infrastructure, Accommodation, Sports Infrastructure (tied with Toronto), and Transport Infrastructure, it seems that Paris and not Beijing had “clearly the best bid.”

The situation is actually worse though. The chart below details Beijing’s scores per category vs. the mean average of all the Applicant Cities.

This shows that Beijing actually scored below the average in 3 out of 5 categories. China had a mean average score 0.2 points below the composite average. It seems strange that such a score could indicate that Beijing should have been considered for the short list of Applicant Cities that the IOC would have voted on to host the 2008 Olympic Games, much less that Beijing would win that election.

Something else must have prompted the choice of Beijing as the 2008 Olympic Games’ host city. It obviously wasn’t their comparative ability to manage such an endeavor. The IOC Evaluation Committee certainly found them wanting.

Tags: 2008 Olympics | China | Corruption | IOC

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 10th, 2008 at 3:29 pm and is filed under 2008 Olympics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.