Latest BDS joke

(EOZ)Let's say an international security company operates in such human-rights abusing states as Pakistan, China, Yemen, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
Would you be upset if that company provides security for the London Olympics?
Apparently not. No one has said a word about that.
But if that same company does work in Israel, then it must be boycotted!
From Al Arabiya:

In the upcoming next week session of the British parliament, the government will be grilled over its decision to allow a firm suspected of human rights abuses in Palestinian territories to provide security services for the London 2012 Olympic Games.
G4S, chosen as “official provider of security and cash services for the Olympics,” also operates in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The company, which describes itself as the “world’s leading international security solutions group” and as the “official provider of security and cash services for the Olympics,” has already taken on 10,400 new employees for the 2012 Games, the Independent reported on Thursday.
The parliament, however, will be quizzed by prominent businessman and Labor peer Lord Hollick, after he files a written question on Monday, on the steps the parliament has taken to ensure that G4S is not providing security services in illegal settlements in the West Bank.

Because Israel is uniquely horrid among all the states G4S operate in!
How much more proof do you need to see that BDS is motivated by anti-semitism, pure and simple? Only the Jewish state gets singled out as being the reason to attack this huge multinational security company that does work in scores of nations worldwide.  G4S also does work with the EU, most Scandinavian states, the US, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Belgium, and pretty much every major nation. And pretty much every Arab state as well, none of whom are boycotting it!
BDSers pretended to have gained a victory when the EU decided to change security companies at its parliament last year away fro G4S, in a move that was not in any way prompted by BDSers.

It's a wonder that they don't boycott the Olympics for Israel being at the games at all... uh oh said too much

Abu Mazen: 'Give us guns and we'll talk'

'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen told French President Francois Hollande on Friday that the 'Palestinians' are willing to 'negotiate' with Israel, provided that Israel first gives guns to the 'Palestinian Authority' and releases from prison the terrorists who know how to use them (Translation via IMRA).

President Mahmoud Abbas said that "if Israel
agreed to release prisoners, and allowed us to import weapons to the police,
we can sit down with Mr. Netanyahu."
The President said in a joint press conference with his French counterpart
Friday that he briefed the French President on contacts with the Israeli
government, and where things have come, noting that "it is known to everyone
that our first choice is negotiations, so we focus on the negotiations
between us and the Israelis...The issue of prisoners is very sensitive,
before more than a month there were hundreds or even thousands of prisoners
on hunger strike and their lives are all at risk and now we have some of the
prisoners on hunger strike like Mahmoud Sarsak a football player who is
hunger strike for 86 days, as well as Akram Alrichawi on hunger strike for
58 days."

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the 'Palestinians' to be provided with guns.
Unless, of course, the Supreme Court tells Netanyahu otherwise....

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

guns-for-felons?

#Obama discloses #Mossad's #Stuxnet for electoral reasons.

(other) Mossad: "Stuxnet is our Baby" Pres Obama disclosed it for electoral reasons.(TA).Israel’s officials have a message for anyone praising the CIA for its sophisticated cyber attack on Iran: It was our baby. The Stuxnet computer worm, described by David Sanger in The New York Times last week as an invention by the Bush administration, was actually developed by Mossad, according to Israeli officials speaking with Haaretz journalist Yossi Melman on condition of anonymity:

The Israeli officials actually told me a different version. They said that it was Israeli intelligence that began, a few years earlier, a cyberspace campaign to damage and slow down Iran’s nuclear intentions. And only later they managed to convince the USA to consider a joint operation — which, at the time, was unheard of.

The irony of course is that both U.S. and Israeli officials spent years denying knowledge of who carried out the attacks, which reportedly destroyed thousands of Iran’s centrifuges, ever since it became public in 2010. Now that it’s out, it’s time to claim credit! Of course, if you read Sanger’s account, he certainly doesn’t diminish the expertise of Israel’s spies:

Israel’s Unit 8200, a part of its military, had technical expertise that rivaled the N.S.A.’s, and the Israelis had deep intelligence about operations at Natanz that would be vital to making the cyberattack a success.

Regardless, these Israeli officials say Sanger’s account was too generous to the CIA. Amusingly, one of the officials tries to play it cool, in his remark to Melman:

My Israeli sources understand the sensitivity and the timing of the issue and are not going to be dragged into a battle over taking credit. “We know that it is the presidential election season,” one Israeli added, ”and don’t want to spoil the party for President Obama and his officials, who shared in a twisted and manipulated way some of the behind-the-scenes secrets of the success of cyberwar.”

Translation: We don’t need to tell anyone we’re the ones responsible for Stuxnet, but just so you know, we’re responsible for Stuxnet.Read the full story here.

well... um duh

Clinton wants to be WallStreet without Zionist Jews and Without a Penis

(Ralph Nader: Bill Clinton ‘laying the groundwork’ for Hillary by ‘undermining Obama’ [VIDEO]) Clinton does not “necessarily” want Obama to lose re-election but doesn’t want the Clintons to be viewed as anti-business.

The most equal between the equals, of course

• (Simply)Powerless and empowered men ate more or less the same quantity of cookies. The powerless ones even consumed a bit more.
• Empowered women ate almost twice as much cookies as powerless ones.

Well, it opens a new can of worms, but what can I do?

Your empowered woman was not so empowered. She ate a lot of cookies because her image is still defined by men. Real happiness from women comes in realizing that they can be powerful... or more powerful, but it won't be pleasurable. Should she make a sacrifice of pleasure I'd respect it, but I'd be a fool to not break her with the knowledge that her bliss and ambition are polarities, if she should cross me. I'm honest about this. Feminist men are not transparent. and control the whole game and no one has any idea who pulls the strings. Feminism is Marxism in drag... and I get the feeling he gets off this way.

Oscar-Winning Schindler’s List Producer Disinvited from Giving Speech at High School Because He’s Too Conservative

Not a fan of Schindler's List. I felt it was exploitative and gave the Palestinians ground to make a comparison. It failed to show Jews fighting back in any capacity... that said... this pisses me off...

(Volokh) That’s what the Hollywood Reporter reports, stating that school district officials acknowledged the incident and apologized for the principal’s disinvitation decision:

[Gerald Molen] was invited to speak to the graduating class at a Montana high school. But upon arriving, was told by the principal he would not be allowed to deliver the speech he had prepared….
Molen says [Principal Tom] Stack told him straight up that he wouldn’t be allowed to address the students because he was “a right-wing conservative.”
“He said some callers didn’t want the kids exposed to that, despite not knowing what my message would be,” Molen told The Hollywood Reporter….
For the Ronan students, Molen planned to use [Oskar] Schindler as an example of what courageous individuals could accomplish, and he also planned to ask them to “imagine your future is a movie. Forty years from now, you’re writing a script about your accomplishments. What would that script look like?”
“It was a totally apolitical speech,” Molen said….

I should note that I don’t think there’s any First Amendment problem with a school’s inviting or not inviting a guest speaker based on the person’s past political activity — giving such a speech is an honor, and a school might consider a person’s opinions in deciding whether to honor him. Nor do I think that there’s any First Amendment problem with the disinvitation: A school need not delegate the decision about who will speak to the students, or to any particular official, and a principal may undo what lower-level officials have done, or even what he himself had done. (Four Justices have suggested that decisions to stock a book in a school library, once made, can’t be unmade for ideological reasons, but four other Justices disagreed with that, and in any event even the Justices who thought there were limits on library book removal decisions recognized that a school had brought authority to set and change “curriculum” — and I think the invitation of honored guest speakers is a part of that curriculum.) The cancellation might be a breach of contract, though it’s not clear what the damages would be, but not a constitutional violation.
This having been said, it sounds like the cancellation was also a sign of both intolerance and impoliteness, and a poor example to set to students — as the superintendent of schools has acknowledged. The principal is leaving the school and going to work at another school 70 miles away (right around the block by Montana standards, I hear), apparently for reasons unrelated to this incident. I hope that his new employers persuade him to behave better in his new position.
For Molen’s own account of the incident, see here. Thanks to Dan Gifford for the pointer. Note that, notwithstanding the Hollywood Reporter headline, this apparently involved a speech to the graduating class but not a graduation speech (the graduation was apparently June 3, and the Molen incident happened before May 26).

I have a big problem with public tax payer money going to political discretion. I have no problem advocating a matter of taste in art, but we should not tolerate a vibrant political sphere in the United States that is acceptable to half the country as a reason to reject the ideas of it's speaker. That might not be law... but I would do everything I could to push it if it isn't. Rejecting someone because of a broad American term like Conservative is ugly. I'm from a family that might feel likewise about Conservatism, and I believe it is an ugly point of view. That said... I don't like the smell here and I'm guessing this is some Juden Hass going down.