Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    June 2020
    S M T W T F S
    « Jan    
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    282930  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘idiotarian’

Dangerous delusions

Posted by Richard on June 1, 2010

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is promoting her new book, Nomad, and recently was interviewed by Tavis Smiley on PBS (HT: Booker Rising). She made the point that she'd recently revised her opinion regarding religions. She previously believed that "all religions are the same and all religions are inherently evil." But she now has a more positive view of Christians and wishes that Muslims would "distance themselves" from the facets of their religion that are "hostile to humanity" as most Christians have. Muslims haven't, she argued:

… I say in the book right now we cannot speak of moderate Muslims because they still cling to the absolute idea that everything in the Qur'an is the true word of God and cannot be changed by human beings, and that the prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, left a moral guidance behind and all we can do is follow it, not question it.

Smiley, somewhat incoherently, expressed doubt that anything needs to be done to change Muslims or "take on Muslims here in the West." Hirsi Ali tried to explain:

… The people who are engaged in terrorist activities look like you and me. They look like everybody else here.

 Major Nidal Hasan, the military guy who in November shot 13 of his colleagues and injured 32, he's going to be on trial pretty soon, I think this week, the young man, Faisal Shahzad, in Times Square who tried to blow innocent people that he doesn't know up, these guys are acting on conviction. Somehow, the idea got into their minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the hereafter.

Smiley objected, revealing a profound delusion about the world in which he lives (emphasis added):

Tavis: But Christians do that every single day in this country.

Ali: Do they blow people up (unintelligible)?

Tavis: Yes. Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, they walk into schools, that's what Columbine is – I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians – and I happen to be a Christian. That's back to this notion of your idealizing Christianity in my mind, to my read. There are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country, where you live and work.

Wow. I guess I haven't been checking the same news sources as Smiley. I wasn't aware of all the bombings and mass killings and aborted terrorist plots in the name of Christianity. No, wait — I'm being too snarky. There's something more seriously amiss here. 

Smiley specifically mentioned Columbine. Does he really think Columbine was an example of Christian terrorism analogous to the Ft. Hood massacre or the Times Square bombing attempt? Apparently he does. That's simply insane.

Occasionally, people who are purportedly Christians shoot up schools or offices, rob banks, or rape and murder people. But here's the thing — they're not doing it in the name of Christianity, to punish, intimidate, or destroy non-Christians, or for the purpose of subjugating all non-Christians and imposing Christian law on all the inhabitants of Earth. That's the difference, Mr. Smiley — can you not understand that??

But Smiley isn't the only person who's delusional regarding Islamists. This administration is full of them. Case in point (emphasis added): 

The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies. 

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms." 

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

As Robert Spencer noted, purifying one's community according to Islamic law is not something the nation's counter-terrorism chief ought to be endorsing: 

Brennan should study the Qur'an and Sunnah in order to discover just how Muslims understand what it means to purify "one's community," and what the Islamic understanding is of the term "innocent." He would find, of course, that a community that is fully purified is one in which non-Muslims live as subjugated dhimmis, and that non-Muslims are never understood in the Qur'an and Sunnah as being "innocent." But he will not undertake such a study, and will never find these things out.

This ignorant son of a bitch is what stands between you and the next terrorist attack, folks. Maybe when a tactical nuke or a "dirty bomb" is detonated in Manhattan, John Brennan will finally understand what Islamists mean by "purifying one's community."

And speaking of dangerous delusions, the U.S. government is actually trying to deport Mosab Yousef. Yousef is the son of the founder of Hamas, the author of Son of Hamas, a convert to Christianity, a one-time Israeli counter-terrorism agent, and a passionate opponent of radical Islam. Check out the interview with Yousef at GQ. It is insane, contemptible, and vile to move to deport this man. Who is responsible for this travesty of justice? 

For the ridiculous details of why Yousef has been declared a terrorist, see this World Net Daily post. And then ask yourself, given the above, whether you think this administration is capable of effectively protecting you from terrorists.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Heads in the sand

Posted by Richard on May 14, 2010

If you think I was too harsh in Naming the enemy, you need to watch Eric Holder, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday, respond to a simple, direct, and non-confrontational question by Rep. Lamar Smith. It's an amazing two minutes of video, at once infuriating and hilarious.


[YouTube link]

This pathological unwillingness to identify the root cause of the problem, to name our enemies, and to acknowledge the seriousness of the threat we face is going to get a lot more people killed. Depending on blind luck and inept bomb-making to keep us safe is a losing strategy. Pretending that the real terrorist threat comes from anti-government right-wing extremists, tea partiers, and opponents of Obamacare is … well, I don't know if it's contemptibly cynical or just self-delusional.

Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn explore this issue in depth in the May 17 issue of The Weekly Standard, noting that "success in the war on terror is not apprehending terrorists after their attacks fail. Success is preventing them from attempting the attack in the first place." I strongly suggest reading the whole thing, but here's an excerpt (emphasis added): 

So, three attacks in six months, by attackers with connections to the global jihadist network—connections that administration officials have gone out of their way to diminish.

The most striking thing about all three attacks is not what we heard, but what we haven’t heard. There has been very little talk about the global war that the Obama administration sometimes acknowledges we are fighting and virtually nothing about what motivates our enemy: radical Islam. 

This is no accident. Janet Napolitano never used the word “terrorism” in her first appearance before Congress as secretary-designate of Homeland Security on January 15, 2009. Shortly thereafter, the Washington Post reported that the Obama administration had dropped the phrase “Global War on Terror” in favor of “Overseas Contingency Operations.” And just last month, we learned that the White House’s forthcoming National Security Strategy would not use religious words such as “jihad” and “Islamic extremism.”

When asked why she did not utter the word “terrorism” in the course of her testimony, Napolitano explained that she used “man-caused disaster” instead to avoid “the politics of fear.” 

The Department of Homeland Security was created after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history to prevent further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. And the head of that department is worried that using the word “terrorism” is playing the politics of fear.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Tip over and capsize

Posted by Richard on April 1, 2010

Rep. Hank Johnson (SD-GA) took over Cynthia McKinney's seat, and he seems to be a worthy successor to that moonbat. At a House Armed Services Committee meeting last Friday considering a troop increase on Guam, Johnson expressed his concern about adding 8000 troops and their families to the island:

Addressing Adm. Robert Willard, who commands the Navy's Pacific Fleet, Johnson made a tippy motion with his hands and said sternly, "My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."

Willard paused and said: "We don't anticipate that."

Like other islands, Guam is attached to the sea floor, which makes it extremely unlikely that it will tip over, even if there are lots and lots of people on it. 

I appreciate The Hill making sure readers are educated on the nature of islands. Extremely unlikely, indeed. 

Here's the video, and it really is must-see TV: 


[YouTube link]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

“They’re not there anymore”

Posted by Richard on January 13, 2010

Shortly after midnight last night, I posted a clip of Republican Scott Brown from last night's Massachusetts Senate race debate. I'm all about fairness, balance, and equal time, so here's another clip from the debate featuring Democrat Martha Coakley:


[YouTube link]

At Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft put her remarks into perspective and provided a transcript (emphasis in original: 

There are no terrorists in Afghanistan?

On Wednesday December 30 Jordanian doctor and Al-Qaeda blogger Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi killed 7 CIA officers in a suicide bomb attack at an outpost in southeastern Afghanistan. Before he murdered the Americans in Afghanistan he recorded a tape with the local Taliban leader. The Taliban released the tape after his death.

On Monday Senate Candidate Martha Coakley told Massachusetts voters that it was time to pull out of Afghanistan. Coakley said she was not sure there was a way to succeed.

“I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I’m not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.”

She’s not just wrong- She’s dangerous.

But good for a laugh.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Surprised by al Qaeda’s determination

Posted by Richard on January 8, 2010

A couple of days after Abdul Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab almost managed to blow up Northwest Flight 253, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told CNN that "one thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked." Which, if true, means the system is utterly dependent on courageous passengers with impeccable timing to thwart such attacks. 

Yesterday afternoon at a press briefing, Napolitano revealed the depth of her knowledge and understanding of the enemy that declared war on us, seeks to destroy us, and is responsible for the terrorist acts that it's her job to protect us from. Gateway Pundit has the video and transcript excerpt (emphasis added): 

Q What was the most shocking, stunning thing that you found out of the review? And, Secretary, to you, as well.

MR. BRENNAN: Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is an extension of al Qaeda core coming out of Pakistan. … The fact that they had moved forward to try to execute this attack against the homeland I think demonstrated to us — and this is what the review sort of uncovered — that we had a strategic sense of sort of where they were going, but we didn't know they had progressed to the point of actually launching individuals here. And we have taken that lesson, and so now we're full on top of it.

SECRETARY NAPOLITANO: I think, following up on that, not just the determination of al Qaeda and al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula, but the tactic of using an individual to foment an attack, as opposed to a large conspiracy or a multi-person conspiracy such as we saw in 9/11, that is something that affects intelligence.

Yeah, who know that al Qaeda was really determined? Or that they might use an individual suicide bomber? Who could have possibly known these things?

Heckuva job, Nappy! 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

More madness on the left

Posted by Richard on October 31, 2008

It's been apparent to me for years that many members of the literati and glitterati are not only ill-informed, but also not quite right in the head. But for evidence of the sheer raving lunacy rampant among the "arts and letters" crowd, it's hard to beat an interview that author Erica Jong recently gave in Italy. Jason Horowitz has translations of some of Jong's "more spirited" quotes:

"The record shows that voting machines in America are rigged."

"My friends Ken Follett and Susan Cheever are extremely worried. Naomi Wolf calls me every day. Yesterday, Jane Fonda sent me an email to tell me that she cried all night and can't cure her ailing back for all the stress that has reduces her to a bundle of nerves."

"My back is also suffering from spasms, so much so that I had to see an acupuncturist and get prescriptions for Valium."

"After having stolen the last two elections, the Republican Mafia…"

"If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it's not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets."

"Bush has transformed America into a police state, from torture to the imprisonment of reporters, to the Patriot Act."

Batsh*t crazy, the lot of them. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Olbermann unhinged

Posted by Richard on May 15, 2008

In a rant so over the top that he seemed to be channeling Howard Beal, Keith Olbermann on Wednesday night accused President Bush of creating "cold-blooded killers … who may yet be charged someday with war crimes" and who have "laid waste to Iraq." Of course, this was on MSNBC, so almost no one saw it.
(text | text with commentary | video)

They're lapping it up at Democratic Underground, Huffington Post, Pandagon, Crooks and Liars, etc.

But don't you dare say they don't support the troops.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

A modest question

Posted by Richard on March 21, 2008

I'm wondering: If Barack Obama can describe his grandmother as "a typical white person" (for having the same misgivings about being followed by a young black man that Jesse Jackson once said he had), would it be OK for me to suggest that the woman pictured below is "a typical black person"?

Never mind, I know the answer: Of course not! That would be stereotyping, condescending, cruel, insensitive, and insulting to millions of sane, responsible, decent black people.

I'm almost certain, however, that the person below is a typical moonbat progressive Democrat.

 Protester on 5th anniversary of Iraq war

This photo is from ProtestShooter, who has many more of various March 19 5th anniversary protest activities in San Francisco and other such recent events. Check it out, and if you appreciate his/her work, make a small donation via one of the PayPal links. (HT: LGF)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Another anti-war bomb

Posted by Richard on November 26, 2007

Four weeks ago, I noted that Hollywood's recent spate of anti-American propaganda films had been singularly unsuccessful:

The bad news is that Hollywood is relentlessly cranking out film after film intended to undermine support for the war against Islamofascism. The good news is that Americans are avoiding these propaganda pieces in droves. Most recently, Babel, The Kingdom, and Rendition have all bombed at the box office.

Add Brian De Palma's execrable Redacted to the list. In fact, put it at the top. According to a NYPost story quoted by JammieWearingFool, it may be the biggest box-office bomb ever. On its opening weekend, it took in about $25,000. No, I didn't accidentally leave off three zeros. Twenty-five thousand dollars. At what — about eight bucks a ticket? That means more people attended your average minor-league hockey game than saw this left-wing turkey.

JWF's post also has the unbelievable story of how De Palma is complaining that he's a victim. You see, his corporate overlords insisted on blurring the faces of dead American soldiers in a "collage of actual bloody bodies at the end of the film." He's been censored! Denied his opportunity to inflict gratuitous pain and suffering on the families and friends of the dead in service of his art (and politics)! Poor Brian!

De Palma is a vile POS, and a pretty sorry director, too — overrated, overblown, and completely derivative. His career should have ended years ago. I remember a great (late 70s?) Saturday Night Live parody commercial for a De Palma film called The Clams — a silly ripoff of Hitchcock's The Birds, complete with clams gathering on a jungle gym. As I recall, the money line at the end was "every couple of years, he picks the bones of a dead director and gives his wife a job."

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hollywood’s war

Posted by Richard on October 31, 2007

The bad news is that Hollywood is relentlessly cranking out film after film intended to undermine support for the war against Islamofascism. The good news is that Americans are avoiding these propaganda pieces in droves. Most recently, Babel, The Kingdom, and Rendition have all bombed at the box office.

But it's not just that film-makers are making anti-war movies. They've also gone out of their way to avoid portraying the most believable and likely villains around today, Islamist terrorists, even if it meant rewriting stories like Tom Clancey's The Sum of All Fears to kowtow to the demands of CAIR (unindicted co-conspirators in a terrorism-financing operation). The film version replaced the Islamist terrorists in Clancy's novel with cartoon neo-Nazis.

Michael Fumento noted the difference between Hollywood then and now:

In 1942, Hollywood went to war. It began pumping out countless movies designed both to entertain the public and bolster its will to fight. A lot of them were cheap, hokey, or both. But even in a nation that seemingly needed little reminder of the dastardly attack on Pearl Harbor or the evils of the Nazis, they kept drilling home the message that we must persevere no matter the costs or the duration.

Well that they did. President Franklin Roosevelt lived in constant fear that the public would turn against the war. Indeed a Gallup Poll taken just five months before Germany’s collapse and long after the American public began learning of the horrors of the Holocaust, showed about one-fourth did not want to drive on to unconditional surrender.

Fast forward that reel to the post-9/11 era. Just how many Hollywood movies (not documentaries) have been made in which the bad guys are Islamist terrorists that do not specifically concern the Sept. 11 attacks? If you have to guess, guess “none.”

Read the whole thing. As Fumento observed, Hollywood seems bent on convincing us that either Islamist terrorists aren't really a threat or that they're no worse than we are.

Also, read Ed Driscoll's Hollywood Nihilism, which argues that the change in Hollywood predates 9/11 and Bush ("who's the real enemy," indeed).

It's really remarkable (and disgusting) that Tinseltown — with its well-known predilection for hedonism, its commitment to feminism, its enthusiastic embrace of alternative lifestyles, and its general "do your own thing" attitude — has consistently sided with the most barbaric, mysogynistic, intolerant, and repressive religio-political movement on the face of the earth, a movement that would, given the chance, behead or stone to death practically every last one of them. 

Driscoll be damned, I blame Bush.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Reasoned discourse on campus

Posted by Richard on September 22, 2007

The Rocky Mountain Collegian is the college newspaper of Colorado State University. In the Friday, September 21, edition, under the heading "TASER THIS," appeared the following editorial (reproduced here in its entirety):

FUCK BUSH

This is the view of the Collegian editorial board.

The only appropriate counterargument is Ring Lardner's great line, "'Shut up,' he explained." 

I'm glad my dad, a proud CSU alumnus (Class of 1937) isn't alive to see this. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

It has to be Rove

Posted by Richard on September 9, 2007

Frank J. provided the definitive Osama tape analysis — short, to the point, and spot on:

We all know Rove is behind the newest Osama video, right? I mean there's no way Osama released a video on his own imitating every single left-wing talking point; that's just too perfect for us. He did everything but end his tirade with, "In conclusion, murderous terrorists and liberals are pretty much ideologically the same. Once again, if you take anything away from my speech, it should be that terrorists and liberals are almost exactly the same thing."

This is just too perfect for us; it has to be Rove.

BTW, I think it's funny how the liberals are acting like all we right wing bloggers conspired together to use the talking point that Osama sounds like a left-wing blogger. Did they ever consider that the reasons we all said he sounds exactly like a left-wing blogger is because he sounds exactly like a left-wing blogger? If in his video he had said, "Hey! Hey! Hey!" in a deep voice, we'd all be saying he sounded like Fat Albert. Instead, he said, "Democrats need to get America our of Iraq now and you need to read Chomsky and worry about global warming," so we're all saying he sounds like a liberal blogger. Occam's razor.

All I can add is I really like Occam's razor. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Kissing up to the enemy

Posted by Richard on June 28, 2007

Yesterday, President Bush spoke at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., a Saudi-funded mosque that preaches the most extreme Wahhabi theology/ideology, virulent Jew-hatred, and total rejection of virtually all aspects of Western culture and civilization. That's bad enough. While there, he announced that he's going to appoint a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference whose mission would be to "listen and learn." That's even worse.

As Steve Emerson pointed out, what this envoy will learn is that the OIC is run by anti-American, terror-embracing, Jew-hating radicals who argue that the 9/11 attacks were an understandable response to "the aggressions and discriminations committed by the West." The OIC embraces and supports Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and Hezbollah, to name a few, as "freedom fighters." 

Charles Johnson was annoyed at all the journalists covering the story (emphasis added):

In all the mainstream media articles about President Bush’s announcement that he’s appointing an envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, not a single one actually looks at the history and statements of this hate-filled Islamic group, whose charter explicitly states that it was formed to help implement the destruction of Israel.

Case in point: this is how the Washington Post describes the OIC: Bush Plans Envoy To Islamic Nations.

The creation of the post will mark the first time a U.S. president has designated an envoy to the 38-year-old organization, which promotes Islamic solidarity and cooperation.

I guess it would just be too difficult for these journalists to actually do some research and find out what the OIC really promotes. They’ve even covered it themselves in the past, but now seem to have forgotten about Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamed’s statement that “Jews rule the world by proxy” and Muslims must unite to find a way to wipe them out: Speech by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia to the Tenth Islamic Summit Conference.

Or they could just search LGF, for years of stories about the hate speech and support for murder and jihad for which the Organization of the Islamic Conference is infamous: LGF search: “Islamic Conference”.

First, the Bush administration sucked up to Abbas and pressured Israel to arm and fund an organization dedicated to its destruction (not that Olmert needed much pressuring; dhimmitude seems to come naturally to him). Now this.

It seems that the anti-American, anti-Israel leftists who dominate the career ranks at the State Department have completely carried the day. I'm very disappointed. This is idiotarian pandering to people who've loudly and repeatedly said they're our enemy. When will we take their word for it and act accordingly?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »

Ron Paul vs. sane libertarianism

Posted by Richard on May 18, 2007

I didn't watch the last Republican debate (or the first, for that matter), but I've seen the video of Ron Paul saying 9/11 was America's fault for bombing Iraq. I'd like to point out that although Paul's perspective is admired by quite a few libertarians (and quite a few 9/11 Truthers), there are also plenty of libertarians who dispute his explanation.

 I think Paul's "analysis" is shallow and ahistorical. It's rooted in ignorance of the origins and nature of the Islamists, and it's woefully ignorant of the breadth of Islamist violence. For a much deeper libertarian analysis of why the Islamic fascists hate us, I recommend Mark Humphrys. For a powerful statement of why we must fight, see anarchist libertarian Eric Raymond's Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto (also linked at right). For some evidence that Islamofascist rage is not just aimed at America and is not just about our intervention in Iraq, see here and here and here and here … and a score of other places I don't have time to link to.

According to Nathan Nelson at RedState, one libertarian — former Paul campaign coordinator Eric Dondero — was so disgusted by Paul's blame America riff that he decided to run against Paul for his congressional seat. Nelson approved:

Back when I was in the process of leaving the Democratic Party and deciding whether or not to become a Republican, Eric Dondero commented on my old blog and left me information about Republican libertarianism. This information was a major factor in my decision to indeed leave the Democratic Party and become a Republican. To this day, I consider myself a Republican who seeks to balance conservatism and libertarianism. I don't believe that these two ideological systems are mutually exclusive, nor do I believe that either system is incompatible with the Republican Party. I think that Republican libertarians are a valuable part of our coalition and will only become more valuable in the years to come, because libertarianism is growing and our party can grow with it.

With that said, Congressman Ron Paul is like a sore on the behind of Republican libertarianism. He makes it seem as though Republican libertarianism is nothing more than Buchananesque defeatism and isolationism. Eric Dondero is a positive alternative to Ron Paul: unabashedly Republican, unabashedly conservative, unabashedly libertarian, and unabashedly willing to balance these three systems. Perhaps most importantly, he is unabashedly willing to vote in favor of defending our country. He is a better choice for Texas' 14th District and for America.

Dondero is a founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has a website called Mainstream Libertarians and a blog called Libertarian Republican. Check them out.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Animal-rights activists want cub killed

Posted by Richard on March 21, 2007

Back in 1994 at the Denver Zoo, a polar bear named Ulu gave birth to twins and promptly rejected them. The cubs were rescued by a zookeeper, put in incubators, and fed with eyedroppers. Klondike and SnowNamed Klondike and Snow, they were the first polar bears successfully hand-raised by humans. People around here went nuts over the adorable little critters, which were a marketer's dream. They gained national attention (including a PBS special), were celebrated in a video and a book, and made the zoo a boat-load of money. When the bears approached adulthood, due to space constraints (and perhaps loss of cuddliness), they were sent to Sea World, a move that caused great consternation locally, complete with petitions and protests.

I remember all the hype, adoration, and frenzy over Klondike and Snow. I don't remember anyone calling for them to be put to death. Not even animal-rights activists. 

Times have changed. Animal-rights activists today would rather see a polar bear die than be raised by humans. In Germany, some say Berlin zookeepers are violating animal-welfare laws by not killing little Knut:

Everyone loves Knut. The three-month-old polar bear born in one of Berlin's zoos has become a star in the German capital and has won hearts the world over. Indeed, the exact date of his first public appearance — likely to be made later this week — is the subject of almost as much anticipation as the details of Britney Spears Alcoholics Anonymous love affair. It's impossible not to love the little guy, right?

Well, not quite. Animal rights activists, as SPIEGEL reported Monday, aren't so enthralled with the polar bear baby. They are concerned that Knut, who is being raised by human hand after his mother rejected him, is in danger of losing touch with the bear necessities. Some would like to see him dead.

"Raising him by hand is not appropriate to the species but rather a blatant violation of animal welfare laws," animal rights activist Frank Albrecht told the mass circulation newspaper Bild, whose front page headline Monday read "Will Sweet Knut Be Killed by Injection?"

Berlin Zoo is allowing Knut to be raised in such a way that the bear will have a behavioral disorder for the rest of his life, Albrecht believes. "In actual fact, the zoo needs to kill the bear cub," he adds.

He's not alone. Wolfram Graf-Rudolf, director of the Aachen Zoo, told the newspaper, "I don't consider it appropriate for the species that the little polar bear is being raised on a bottle." The animal will be fixated on his keeper and not be a "real" polar bear, he says. However he feels it is now too late to put Knut out of his supposed misery. "The mistake has been made. One should have had the courage to put him to sleep much earlier."

Kill Knut because he's not a "real" polar bear? This is the PETA view of animals. Such people argue that animals have "rights" that forbid us from eating them, wearing them, riding them, putting them in zoos or circuses, having them as pets, or benefitting from them in any way whatsoever. Then they turn around and declare an animal worthless and unfit to live because dependence on humans has ruined its animal "purity" and "humanized" it. It's not love of animals that drives such people, it's hatred of humans.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »