Last time, you may recall, I mentioned that the act of fetal pillage was nearing meme status.  Shortly thereafter, Dynel Lane lured an expectant mother to her Longmont, CO home and hacked out the third-trimester fetus with a kitchen knife.   Though the child died during the assault, District Attorney Stan Garnett could not, under state law, file murder charges “without proof of a live birth.”  Yet his failings pale in comparison to those of prosecutors in Detroit; they settled on charges of child abuse against Mitchelle Blair who beat two of her kids to death and stuffed them in a freezer.  By statute, Blair could face up to three years in prison and a partial loss of her food stamps.

After my last missive, I received some rather bitchy and litigious feedback for conflating Judaism and homosexuality, yet my vindication was as swift as it was odious.  Not the day after I published Kikes and Fairies, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio waived the consent requirement for a procedure known as oral suction circumcision.  During this ritual, a mohel fellates a freshly hewn infant in an attempt to cauterize the penile wound with an admixture of saliva and herpes.  Though the Vatican rushed to consecrate a handful of similar rites, God himself was none too pleased.  Days later he punished the Hymietown Orthodoxy by burning seven Brooklyn siblings in a house fire.  But the outpouring of support from the community soon had the Heavenly Father regretting his overreach.  As if to make amends, He sent a German airliner crashing into the Alps.

Two times now in as many years, a UCLA coed seeking a position in student government was denied due process because of anti-Jewish sentiment.  In the end, the administration intervened on behalf of Rachel Beyda as it had for Abraham Oved, though none of the perpetrators faced the slightest of disciplinary action.  In fact, Chancellor Gene Block trivialized the latest incident as “a teaching moment,” somehow equating religious bigotry with pre-schoolers squabbling over a juice box.  How different would it have been if we were talking about institutional discrimination against women or blacks – groups protected by Title IX and the Civil Rights Act, respectively – rather than a couple of no-good Yids? Imagine the endless tirades from Gloria Allred and Al Sharpton.  Meanwhile, two University of Oklahoma frat bothers were expelled for merely singing a racially insensitive song despite the fact that the word “nigger” is used incessantly in mainstream media.  And recall how UCLA junior Alexandra Wallace was run off campus for posting the now infamous “Ching-Chong” video lamenting the “hordes of Asians” dominating the school.

And dominate they do.  Asians comprise 14% of California’s population, yet they make up 39% of the UC student body.  Why then do members of Berkeley’s black student union feel “oppressed” by Whitey, when Caucasians themselves are undercut by a quarter of their freight?   I am flummoxed.  I also fail to understand why these black students are demanding a university building be renamed in honor of convicted cop killer Assata Shakur, a petition that will do little to ingratiate them with Bay Area police officers already under investigation for pervasive racial text messages.  “Get ur pocket gun,” reads one, “Keep it available in case the monkey returns to his roots.”    Another avers, “Niggers should be spayed.”   In response, San Francisco police chief Greg Suhr told reporters, “It makes me sick to my stomach to even have these guys around,” though it wasn’t clear if he was referring to the accused officers or the frenzy of Jew lawyers circling city hall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I shared, last time, how Wal-Mart had wantonly crushed my holiday dreams of gunning down – nolle prosequi – Negroes in their stores.  Apparently, I was not alone.  Veronica Rutledge enticed her two-year-old son to Hayden, Idaho – birthplace of the Aryan Nations – with promises of blasting some jigaboos.  But when Wal-Mart greeters informed the family that the yuletide hunting season was unquestionably over, the indignant toddler fished his mother’s 9mm Smith & Wesson out of her purse and recusantly blew her brains out.

I guess it’s left to dad, then, to whip up Veronica’s famous tuna casserole next time Easter brunch rolls around.  Hard as it may be to believe, more than two billion sentient human beings annually celebrate Jesus’ supposed reanimation; yet not one of them is waiting around for either Rafael Ramos or Wenjian Liu to rise from the dead.  After vowing to avenge the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, Ismaaiyl Brinsley coldly executed the NYPD officers as they sat in their patrol car.  As I predicted last month, the “community of color” would, given the absence of indictments against killer cops, seek retribution.  Against white cops.  So when the news broke that the slain officers were closer in hue to Tamir Rice than Mark Rine, the street roiled once again.  Two weeks later, the NYPD high command feared an ambush had targeted several officers in the Bronx; many stressful hours later it was determined that the shootout was merely the afterclap of an armed robbery.   Both sides, needless to say, remain on edge.

Hard segue: As a self-styled satirist, I cannot escape commenting on the murders at Charlie Hebdo.  First and foremost, that ditty about the pen being mightier than the sword has been proven, despite its longevity, wholly inaccurate. Perhaps if the pens were really, really sharp and shot out of a crossbow, but even then…

Secondly, numerous Islamic leaders across the earth swiftly and sternly denounced the massacre.  Mohammed Shafiq, for example, tweeted:  “I strongly condemn the armed attack on #CharlieHedbo offices is Paris.  #notinmyname.”  The response was widespread as it was overt.  Yet we in the West refuse to abandon the belief that all these critics, once the cameras avert, will frenziedly exchange virtual high-fives, like Barbary pirates celebrating another takedown in the establishment of a global caliphate.

Thirdly, a debate has been entered as to the underlying motivation or conditions that led to this bloody denouement.  Fox News paints Muslims as bloodthirsty and hegemonic, while others, such as Berkeley’s M. Steven Fish and Michigan’s Juan Cole, argue that violence is a human, not religious characteristic.  The professors independently tally history’s killings, ascribing the overwhelming percentage to non-Muslims.   One flaw, as I see it, is inclusion of both World Wars and the twentieth century’s Communist mass killings (see: Stalin, Mao, etc.) in the analysis.   These had nothing to do with the imposition of religious ideology (though Hitler sought to erase it) and should not, therefore, append the sums aggregated by the Crusades, the Inquisition, or various arrogating conquistadors.  Moreover, there remains a passable argument that the conflicts in Northern Ireland and the Indian sub continent have more to do with geopolitics than with faith.   Through this lens, then, one can only view videoed ISIS beheadings, the Taliban school massacre in Peshwar or Boko Haram’s spate of butchery and kidnappings as events that have no justification in the modern world.

Other points raised by the media include the lingering effects of European colonialism, the dearth of economic opportunity for eurozone immigrants, and Western Muslims’ lack of assimilation.  It is this last point that begins to nudge me towards professors Fish and Cole’s point of view.  Once such “outsiders” fully enmesh themselves into the fabric of American society, are we to take comfort that our mass killings have become purely secular in nature (think: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma City) as opposed to parts of a larger religious war (recall: 9/11, Ft. Hood)?  To me, the distinction between martyr and madman is hardly relevant; in the end, dead is dead.