Hamas, Hezbollah, and Their Band of Scummy Brothers: A Toast to Eternal Jihad Against the Jewish State

Hamassholes and Hezbollonians

In the grim theater of Islamist fanaticism, where the dead are paraded as heroes and peace is dismissed as a Zionist plot, the latest gathering of terror's elite serves as a stark reminder that some wounds fester not from defeat, but from the delusion of perpetual victory.

One might have hoped, naively, perhaps, that the blood-soaked annals of October 7, 2023, would linger in the collective memory of the civilized world as a cautionary horror, a barbarism so raw that even the most hardened ideologues would pause to reconsider their path of self-destruction. 

But no: in the fetid halls of rejectionism, where the air reeks of cordite and odiferous grudge, Hamas and its constellation of terrorist confederates have chosen instead to crown that day of slaughter as a "landmark victory." Disarmament is a quaint Western fancy, fit only for the gullible. 

Peace initiatives, those fragile olive branches extended by a weary international community are illusions to be trampled underfoot. Their vow, delivered with the solemnity of a fatwa, is to press on in their war against the Jewish state, undeterred by the rubble of Gaza or the pleas of a region desperate for respite.

The stage for this latest tableau of defiance was the 34th Arab National Conference in Beirut, that perennial echo chamber of grievance and grenade. There, amid the incense of martyrdom and the rhetoric of endless "resistance," leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, and a rogues' gallery of other Islamist death cults convened to denounce the "Israeli occupation and its expansionist projects in Palestine and the region," as breathlessly reported by the Arabic-language Lebanese news outlet Al Mayadeen. It was a summit less of statesmen than of saboteurs, where the clarion call rang out against any compulsion to lay down arms, those sacred totems deemed essential "in protecting national sovereignty and securing the region’s future." Western influence, naturally, was the great Satan to be scourged from the sands, lest it dilute the pure venom of their cause.

Hamas's chief, Khalil al-Hayya, took the podium to recast the horrors of that October dawn in the burnished glow of myth. "On Oct. 7, an extraordinary act of heroism unfolded across Palestine and its borders, as people everywhere contributed in their own way to support us," he intoned, as if the rape, murder, and mutilation of innocents at a music festival and in kibbutzim were but verses in an epic of liberation. Gaza, he allowed, lies "wounded today, but it remains steadfast, calling on everyone to stay united in the pursuit of our legitimate national goals." And then, with the weary cadence of a prophet foretelling apocalypse, he added: "Palestine will endure, just as Gaza has, despite the aggression — its land, its people, men, women, and children — and eventually, injustice will be overcome."

One listens to such words and marvels at the alchemy: how rivers of blood become ambrosia, how the screams of the violated transmute into symphonies of solidarity. At this Beirut bacchanal, Hamas and its allies exalted the October 7 atrocities not as a spasm of savagery, but as the fulcrum of history in their crusade against the "Zionist occupation." Proposals to carve up Gaza into zones of uneasy truce? Anathema, a betrayal of the sacred soil. Unity, they proclaimed, was their unbreakable creed—unity in arms, in ideology, in the unquenchable thirst for Israel's annihilation.

"We emerged from this battle against the occupation with our weapons in hand. All resistance factions stood united against the aggression, and that same solidarity extended to the political front," said Ziad al-Nakhala, the chieftain of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, his voice a gravelly hymn to the arsenal that sustains them. He turned his ire, predictably, on the peace overtures from Washington: "[US President Donald] Trump's plan has set numerous obstacles and conditions that cannot be implemented," he scoffed, as if the very notion of negotiation were an insult to their divine mandate.

In the shadow of these pronouncements, the international machinery grinds on, its diplomats shuttling between Tel Aviv and Doha in a Sisyphean bid to midwife a Gaza ceasefire and stitch together a broader Middle Eastern peace. Yet here, in the heart of Hezbollah's lair, such efforts are dismissed as the machinations of infidels, fit only to be met with escalation and the relentless advance of their theocratic agenda. Jamil Mazhar, deputy secretary general of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)—that venerable relic of Marxist-Leninist terror now fused with jihadist zeal, laid bare the contempt. He called for "rejecting plans to place the Palestinian people under tutelage and opposing any attempt at demographic change," a not-so-veiled broadside at the Gaza peace blueprint, which envisions an International Stabilization Force (ISF) to shepherd the fragile truce.

Under Trump's plan, this ISF, a multinational brigade drawn from willing nations, would stand sentinel over the ceasefire, drilling local security outfits while patrolling Gaza's frontiers with Israel and Egypt, safeguarding civilians, and keeping the arteries of aid flowing unimpeded. A pragmatic scaffold for stability, one might think, in a land scarred by war's depredations. But to Mazhar and his ilk, it is chains disguised as olive branches. "We have gathered to renew our commitment against the Zionist enemy and its allies, and to reaffirm that the fight continues," he thundered from the rostrum. And lest the message blur into mere verbiage, he urged: "Today, we must move beyond mere solidarity and slogans, and put them into practical action."

From the Lebanese front, Hezbollah's international relations apparatchik, Ammar al-Moussawi, lent his voice to the chorus, reaffirming the Shia militant's unswerving fealty to the "resistance in Gaza." 

"We joined the battle to support Gaza out of our conviction in the justice and righteousness of this cause, and we do not regret our decision," he averred, as if the barrages of rockets into Israeli towns were but chivalric gestures in a noble quest. History, he invoked with the solemnity of a chronicler, "shows that the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine has endured crises far graver than today's, and the same resistance that produced those martyred leaders is fully capable of producing new ones." 

A chilling prospectus: the martyrs beget martyrs, the cycle of violence spun eternal by the hand of ideology.Nor was Yemen's Houthi horde absent from the fray. Their leader, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, hailed the "support fronts" as the unsung architects of this interminable two-year tempest. "Hezbollah's role is at the forefront of the support fronts, thanks to its steadfastness, pioneering and significant contributions, and immense sacrifices," he proclaimed, bestowing laurels on the very network that has dragged Lebanon to the brink of ruin. 

The Israeli-American axis, in his telling, "seeks to impose a permissive formula and always place the blame on the victim." And with a final flourish of paranoia: "The Israeli enemy is attempting to disarm the weapons that protect Lebanon and the arms that have prevented it from controlling Gaza for the past two years."

It is a tapestry of delusion, this conference, woven from threads of Iranian patronage, for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis alike draw succor from Tehran's inexhaustible spigots of weaponry, coin, and cadre. Iran, that ayatollah's forge of proxy wars, ensures the flame of fanaticism burns undimmed. 

And so, as the world tires of translation and temporizing, these groups pledge not reconciliation, but redoubled rage. Peace, in their lexicon, is surrender; victory, an horizon forever receding yet eternally chased. One cannot help but pity the region, and Israel, that improbable bastion of resilience, condemned to dance to this macabre tune until the music, or the dancers, at last give out.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. 

Tweet

Comrade de Blasio [not his real name] wants more government control

Comrade Bill de Blasio, whose real name is Warren Wilhelm Jr., cited his "socialistic impulse" [read 'commie'] in describing his utopia where New York City government has control over all the land and all the buildings in his city, and he is the lord and absolute master of all that comes and goes.

"I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be," the Communist mayor said in an interview with New York Magazine. "I think there's a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community that they would like things to be planned in accordance with their needs."

By their, de Blasio, a full-blown Marxist, means the collective.

In accordance with whose needs? People with no skin in the game. People who want to share the wealth of the high earners, as if somehow that is moral.

People with lots of money and power in government love socialism and communism. It doesn't affect them like it does to the middle class person who ends up paying more in taxes than he or she takes home.

And what he's asking for is more and more regulations. With Trump reducing regs, you can see how the economy is humming along. More regulations, and I mean unnecessary ones, hurts businesses, big and small.

The leftist went on to say, "Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed."

Because the government is so great at doing things, right Billy?

But he added, "And there would be very stringent requirement around income levels and rents."

When are the people on the left going to come to their senses and see how we have come so far in our free market society? World poverty has been incredibly reduced since the 1980s and that can be blamed on the free market.

Leftists like de Blasio and Ocasio-Cortez are quite happy spending other people's money, but eventually, as in Venezuela, they will run out of it.

They aren't very good at basic economics, in spite of Ocasio-Cortez having majored in it at school and de Blasio in urban studies and International Affairs.

Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet

Ohio bill would stop conservative speech stopping

Universities and colleges are nearly universal in their leftist political views, indoctrinating young minds in progressive (aka regressive) thinking. If you want to pull an "A" from your professor, you better write like Marx and think like a Bolshevik. If you don't, you will be demoralized, scholastically disenfranchised, demonized, vilified, and be told or made to shut up.

In schools of "high learning" across the country, higher learning isn't the priority, it's recruiting for Antifa. We have seen it at Berkeley, the University at Buffalo, and many other schools that ought not to receive public funding.

Finally, there's a bill crafted by two Ohio Republican lawmakers that would stop universities from disinviting controversial speakers based on any potential negative reactions or protests the guests might trigger.

It's part of a Campus Free Speech Act that also aims to get rid of so-called free speech zones and allow for First Amendment activities across entire campuses.

The left typically hates free speech and will hate this bill because it eliminates safe zones where many a snowflake dwells, and it allows for the First Amendment to be utilized for its intended purpose: to protect all speech, including that which they don't like. 

It also promotes and protects intellectual diversity, which the left also hates. They only want one tune to be sung on campuses. 

Republican Reps. Wesley Goodman and Andrew Brenner announced the act on Tuesday at the Ohio statehouse.

This is not free speech

The act, which is expected to be introduced in the coming weeks, aims to prohibit administrators from taking action "that limits or chills the expression of any member of the campus community or their invited guests based on the content of the expression," Goodman said in a news release.

It prevents "heckler's vetoes" by "prohibiting universities from disinviting speakers based on the potential reaction, opposition, offense, or irritation taken to the speaker's expression."

Under this act, students will be able to bring a cause of action against the institution they believe infringes on their free speech rights.

So people like Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, and even Milo Yiannopoulos will be afforded their First Amendment rights, along with the students who want to hear what they have to say.



Tweet

Liberals Still Suck

Liberals have big hearts to make up for what they lack in brains. Perhaps it isn't fair of me to say this--I know there are plenty of smart liberals out there with degrees in studies other than Ancient Dance Rituals as a Prelude to Coitus, but it seems that even those liberals have a somewhat simple-minded way of looking at life. Let me 'splain.

Take Obama (please). He talks a good game about income inequality, as if the concept of some people making more money than you is unfair, (just because they work harder and can accomplish more), but it seems to me that income opportunity is more realistic than income inequality. There will always be people better at doing things than other people, and in order to retain them, employers will pay them more. That's the free market. 

Imagine if all baseball players had income equality. Why should they try to excel? You'd see more bunting to save energy, bases on balls thrown by pitchers who were not going to exert themselves, and fewer spectators. There would be no incentive to excel. The game would be about as exciting as watching cheese mold. Think about it, Mr. Obama.

Robin Hood Would Have Led the Tea Party

In today's out of control economy, it seems acceptable for government to take from those who have and give it to those who have not. While I'm not being original in how I label this, I like to call this notion the Robin Hood Syndrome.  I believe much of the American public has come to accept this as moral and ethical behavior.

The Free Online Dictionary defines syndrome as: 1. A group of symptoms that collectively indicate or characterize a disease, psychological disorder, or other abnormal condition. 2. a) A complex of symptoms indicating the existence of an undesirable condition or quality; b) A distinctive characteristic or pattern of behavior.

Robin Hood, you may remember, lived in the Sherwood Forest and his arch nemesis was the Sheriff of Nottingham. The Sheriff, with his greasy, twisted moustache, symbolized the government, and the poor people, who were hard working peons,  had to pay taxes to him. In an interesting article by John A. Wilkins (Nov. 4, 2009) entitled: Taxing the Rich to Help the Poor--The Morality of the Robin Hood Syndrome, the author discusses the problem with this kind of thinking. He cites an IRS study (2004) showing that the top 25% of wage earners paid 85% of the taxes while the bottom 50% paid a mere 3%. 

But Obama casts the rich "those millionaires and billionaires with their corporate jets and private jets," (you've heard the talking points), as the "haves," and thus, they must pay "their fair share." Does Robin Hood begin to sound relevant to this discussion?

Yet it was Robin Hood who was taking from the government coffers, and redistributing it to the workers. In other words, Robin was taking the tax money back and returning it to the people--not the other way around. 

The moral lesson here is this: money gives people power and with power comes jealousy and victimization. Those with money are seen as evil and selfish, and are therefore worthy of contempt just for being rich, whether the money was inherited or earned through hard work--and this is how Obama has portrayed those "One Percenters." 

I have no doubt that if Robin Hood were a real person, he would be a proud member of the Tea Party. Not just another guy in tights.

Tweet

Occupy This

The occupiers are losing it. They are not playing well with others, especially the 53% of the nation who goes to work, pays their taxes, raises their family, and loves their country. No, these occupiers are as angry as a Greek mob on steroids, and quite frankly, if you see the videos of what's taking place in Oakland, you can't really tell the difference between the two countries.The video in today's blog was shot a week ago, but nothing much has changed except the air quality by the tents--it has worsened. I wonder if Nancy Pelosi still thinks these cute kids are speaking for her and her left-leaning, bailout providing, Arab Spring loving, racist party. I know they still speak for Michael Moore, but he's only anti-American in voice, not in spirit, because he would not have his $59 million in a non-capitalistic society if he wasn't a capitalist.  In fact, if he was in any other country and made documentaries aimed at making money by denouncing that country, he likely would not have a job, and more likely not even have his testicles on board. It is because of our freedom and Constitution that these cretins can protest and denounce the country, without being sent to a gulag when they do it. 



But those who remain in New York's Zuccotti Park, or Oakland, Detroit,Chicago, and all the other cities in America since this began, are not people with legitimate gripes, but people with anger, a propensity toward violence, drugs, casual public sex, and a soap deficit. These are the anarchists who want to see our freedoms end, but who are unwilling to move to a socialist or communists country where they can get what they claim to want. They are supposedly the 99 percenters, those who fall into a salary category below that elite one percent, but globally, they are the one percent whom they protest against. The global average salary is about 2 dollars a day--the OWS clowns average far above that because America is, per capita, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, although it is also true, that one in 15 of people in the US are living in abject poverty. I suspect none of these poor people can even afford a tent to pitch alongside the protestors. 


I believe Americans have the right to protest. I believe in the First Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, but I do not believe that sedition should be rewarded with praise like the left is giving to the Occupy movement. I believe it's time to bring out the water cannons and to round up the rabble, take names, and put those who have destroyed property or committed any criminal act, in jail. The rights to protest are one thing, but people who are affected adversely by these protestors also have rights. Small business has been adversely effected and nothing has been done to help them. It isn't fair--the protestors want their "fair share" of other people's money. That sounds like socialism or Marxism to me.

Marx: Stinky learns to count, but not to bathe

Isn't it ironic that Karl Marx bathed about as much as the occupiers have since stinking up the place?

Tweet