When genocide is justified

When genocide is justified by Peter Burrows – elburropete@gmail.com – 5/23/24 

The lies and disinformation about Israel’s war in Gaza are appalling. If we had journalists and a media that were worth a damn, these lies wouldn’t get very far. As it is, pro-Hamas and anti-Jewish riots in America and around the world are a direct result of people believing those lies. That’s for the most part. The Muslims know better. 

What lies am I referring to? Let’s start with the one that Israel is an apartheid state, a reference to when South Africa was ruled by whites and black people were very much second-class citizens.  

Israel is a tiny country of only 9.9 million which most people think is 100% Jewish. In fact, only 73% are Jewish, 21% are Arab and 6% “other.”  Most of the Arabs are Muslims and they are full citizens who vote and have elected representatives in the Israeli Congress, the Knesset.  You didn’t know that? Gosh I wonder why that is. 

I also found at least nine mosques in Israel, there are probably more, which got me to wondering how many Jews live in Gaza and how many synagogues there are in Gaza. There are NO Jews and NO synagogues in Gaza, which means that GAZA is the real apartheid state.  

Personally, I think the Jews are foolish to allow Muslims to live and worship in their country. You can never trust a Muslim, especially if you’re a Jew. In fact, I think Israel SHOULD be an apartheid state as far as Muslims are concerned. But hey, that’s just me and I’m a horrid racist Islamophobe.  

Another lie is that Israel is a colonizer country, settled after WW I by Jews after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the wake of WW I. This is ridiculous. There were thousands of Jews living in that area after WW I and there had been for 3,000 years. The kingdoms of Judah and Israel existed 1600 years before Muhammad was born and were once ruled by Kings David and Solomon. David and Solomon were Jews, did you know that? You should. Jews whose history dates back to ancient times are called Old Yishuv.  

It’s the Arab Muslims who are the colonizers, something educated college students should know. (“Educated college students” is getting to be an oxymoron.) The Crusades, again something college student should know, were unsuccessful attempts to dislodge the Arab-Muslim colonizers.   

But the biggest lie is that ISRAEL is committing genocide when civilians in Gaza die in the fighting between Israel and Hamas. The irony of this is astounding. When the Muslims say, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” what do you think that means, especially after October 7? 

It means they will kill every Jew “between the river and the sea,” after raping and torturing them, of course; after beheading babies, after burning people alive, after mutilating bodies; all the while honoring their god by shouting “Allahu Ackbar.” October 7 was a preview, not an aberration. 

The resulting Muslim state won’t have any synagogues, nor will it have any churches because the Muslims won’t stop with the Jews. Muslims, and Gazans are Muslims, have been ordered by Allah to wage war, jihad, until the world is ruled by Islam. Here’s a review of jihad doctrine, my emphasis in caps:  

“Jihad, holy fighting in Allah’s cause, with full force of numbers and weaponry is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars on which it stands. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means none has the right to be worshiped but Allah) and his religion is propagated. — JIHAD IS AN OBLIGATORY DUTY IN ISLAM ON EVERY MUSLIM —.” (1)  

“Jihad is a communal obligation.” — “The ‘obligatory’ is that which the Lawgiver STRICTLY REQUIRES be done.” (2)  

“Jihad is personally obligatory upon ALL those present in the battle lines —.” (3)  

“Jihad is also personally obligatory for everyone able to perform it, MALE OR FEMALE, OLD OR YOUNG, when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims —  having entered our territory, EVEN IF THE LAND CONSISTS OF RUINS — for non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them BY EVERY POSSIBLE MEANS.” (4)  

In Gaza, rapidly becoming a “land of ruins,” “by every possible means” would include putting important military assets in places like hospitals and schools or building tunnels under densely populated civilian areas, as well as giving adolescents weapons. The charge that Hamas is deliberately endangering the civilians of Gaza is true, but the implication that these civilians are being coerced is not true. They are Muslims engaged in jihad and if they resist Hamas in any way, they would be considered apostates and duly executed in accordance with Sharia law. 

The word “Hamas,” by the way, is an Arabic acronym for “Islamic Resistance Movement.” Repeat that: Islamic Resistance Movement. The War in Gaza is NOT a political war. It’s the continuation of a 1400-year religious war that Islam is waging against non-Muslims.  

This means there can’t be innocent “civilians” in Gaza because they’re all Muslims, and, in fact, there are no innocent Muslims ANYWHERE! In the words of one brilliant apostate: 

“Every Muslim, regardless of whether, on the one hand, they joined in the slaughter, rushed in for their share of the spoils, abused the people taken captive, rejoiced in the streets around the world and all over social media, or on the other, they were conflicted about what they saw their co-religionists do, none of this would have happened were not for the existence of the religion they all adhere to. — 

“My point here is that if there are a billion Muslims in the world today, then for as long as they remain Muslim, every single one of them bears one billionth responsibility for every killing, every rape, every torture, every mutilation motivated by the religion they keep alive by continuing to belong to it.”  

https://www.murtaddtohuman.org/every-single-muslim-is-responsible-part-1/

No one knows how manty civilians joined Hamas in the October 7 massacre and tsunami of rape, murder and torture because Hamas soldiers don’t wear uniforms, which is intentional. They are indistinguishable from civilians, or to put it another way, the civilians are indistinguishable from Hamas, but for all practical purposes it doesn’t make any difference since they’re all jihadists.  

The Israelis don’t see it that way and are taking unprecedented steps to avoid civilian casualties. In my opinion, this is a mistake. They’re simply ensuring there will be that many more jihadists in the future and besides, they aren’t getting any credit for it.  Instead, they’re giving advanced warning to Hamas, which is why Hamas has a civilian-shield strategy. Sure enough, as of May 22, only 30-35% of Hamas’s forces have been killed. (5) 

Which leaves more jihadists to fight another day. And will there be more conflict in the future, more jihadists to kill? Oh yes. The Muslims have promised there will be more October 7s, hundreds of them. (6) 

The double standard and the hypocrisy are disgusting. Ceasefire? One will occur instantly if Hamas stops fighting. By the way, the Muslims still have 128 hostages. I think Israel should kill every Gazan they can until those hostages are released. It’s possible that most of them are dead, which is probably why Hamas rejected an “incredibly generous” ceasefire offer last week. (7) All the more reason to spare no Gazan.  

Anyone whining about the civilian casualties in Gaza is either ignorant of the facts or is someone with a lopsided view of justice, someone with no sense of moral outrage at what the Muslims did on October 7.  Of course, we expect such whining from Muslims, the most despicable people on earth.  

Even if Israel were to kill all 2 million Gazans, this would hardly constitute genocide as there are still 1.8 billion Muslims in the world who will continue their war on civilization until they, too, are annihilated or renounce their religion. Unfortunately, after 1400 years, neither outcome is likely. 

Most people don’t know that we were conducting a genocide in WW II against Japan. That’s not what it was called, but that’s what it was. As an aside, if the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had inflicted damage proportional to what Hamas did to Israel, they would have killed 15,800 Americans and kidnapped another 2,600. As it was, they killed “only” 2500 Americans, almost all military.  

The war that followed in response to “only” 2500 deaths wasn’t going to end until the Japanese surrendered, and it didn’t look like that was going to happen. We defeated their armies, destroyed their fleet, and killed their civilians by the hundreds of thousands, all to no avail. It took two atomic bombs to make them surrender.  

Surprisingly, as bad as the civilian tolls in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, one night of fire-bombing Tokyo was just as devastating. (8)  There was no talk then about innocent civilians, disproportionate force or genocide. Like the Gazans, Japanese civilians were ready to die in defense of their homeland. Japanese soldiers, like Muslims today, fought with suicidal intensity. There were, for example, more pilot volunteers for Kamikaze flights than airplanes.  

Before the first nuclear bomb was dropped, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration on July 26, 1945. Here is the final paragraph: We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.  

In other words, we threatened them with genocide and when they didn’t surrender, began to do just that. I think a similar ultimatum should be given Hamas: Surrender and turn over the hostages or face prompt and utter destruction.  

Fortunately for the Japanese, Emperor Hirohito put a stop to the war and the fighting ceased. Unlike the Japanese though, the Muslims have no Hirohito to tell them to surrender and they never will have. Their jihad is in the name of Allah and no mortal can countermand Allah. They will stop only when there are no more Muslims in the world — or no more non-Muslims!  

When the Japanese surrendered, they ceased to be a threat. Since the Muslims will never surrender, they will always be a threat and will continue to kill non-Muslims every day until we stop them. Every day? Yes. Check this website to see what CNN et al is NOT telling you: 

.https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ 

As a matter of self-defense, genocide against Muslims is justified! We should turn their religion against them by taking a verse out of the Quran, the Verse of the Sword, Verse 9:5, and change the wording so it applies to Muslims, instead of “Slay the pagans wherever you find them,” it should read: “Slay the Muslims wherever you find them.” 

This, of course, won’t be necessary If they renounce their religion and abandon their quest for world domination. There really is no other option.  There is a real possibility that if Iran develops nuclear weapons that they will believe they have a religious imperative to use them. Is that what it will take to wake us up? I hope not. 

The idea of a mutually assured destruction, MAD, is not the deterrent to a devout Muslim as it would be for anybody else. In fact, because of the glories promised in the Quran for those who die engaging in Jihad for Allah, the prospect of such a death might actually be an incentive. (9) 

Verse 9.38 in the Quran says: “Believers! What is amiss with you that when it is said to you: “March fourth in the cause of Allah,” you cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the worldly life to the hereafter? Know well that all the enjoyment of this world, in comparison with the Hereafter, is trivial.” (10)  

Verse 9:111 leaves no doubt. It is called “The Verse of the Bargain.” Slightly edited for brevity: “Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their belongings and in return has promised that they shall have Paradise. They fight in the way of Allah, and slay and are slain. Such is the promise He has made.” (11)

Thus, we know why the devout Muslim “loves death” more than we love life. How should Israel respond to an enemy who “loves death” and has promised hundreds more October 7s until “Palestine is free from the river to the sea”?  

The place for Israel, and the world, to start is to identify the enemy: Islam, period. Not “radical” as opposed to “moderate” Islam, but just Islam. Maybe we should listen to what the Muslims themselves tell us. In 2007, Recep Erdogan, the President of Turkey said, “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” (12) 

The Chinese have recognized this simple fact of life and responded to widespread Islamic terrorist attacks 10 years ago by cracking down on Muslims around their nation. Their efforts have drawn criticism, but they’ve also stopped the terrorism. (13)  

We should follow their example, because if we don’t the Muslims will continue to kill us. Their religion demands it. 

Footnotes 

(1) Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Quran in The English Language by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Dr Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilal. Published by Darussalam, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Revised edition March 1999, page 50 footnote (1). 

2011 edition at Amazon: www.amazon.com/Noble-Quran-Interpretation-Meanings-Language/dp/996074079X/ref=sr_1_21

(2) Reliance of the Traveller – A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri. In Arabic with facing English text, commentary and appendices edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications Beltsville, Maryland U.S.A. Revised edition 1194 reprinted 2015, pg. 600 and pg. 30.  

(3) ibid, pg. 601  

(4) ibid.  

Available at Amazon: www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728/ref=sr_1_1

(5) https://www.agenzianova.com/en/news/lintelligence-usa-israele-da-ottobre-ha-ucciso-solo-il-30-35-per-cento-di-miliziani-di-hamas/ 

(6) https://www.jns.org/palestinian-official-warns-israel-of-multiple-oct-7-massacres/ 

(7) https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/biden-ends-the-us-israel-alliance-at-a-fortuitous-moment/ 

(8)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo 

(9) https://nationalpost.com/holy-post/we-love-death-more-than-you-love-life 

(10) Towards Understanding the Quran, Abridged version of Tafhim al-Quran by Sayyid A ‘la Mawdudi, Translated and edited by Zafar Ishaq Ansari. Published by the Islamic Foundation Leicester, UK, 2007, hardcover, pg. 390. 

(11) Ibid pg. 411 

Available at Amazon. www.amazon.com/Towards-Understanding-Quran-Abridged-2007-07-15/dp/B017PONNUC/ref=sr_1_7

(12) https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/moderate-turkeys-moderate-pm-erdogan-explains-there-no-moderate-islam-andrew-c/ 

(13) https://wordpress.com/post/silvercityburro.com/722 

Addendum

Remember, Muhammad spoke for Allah, so Muslims believe this hideous message is from God: “Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: ‘The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.’” (Sahih Muslim 2922) 

“So now, what’s your take on the significant discrepancy between average pay for workers and corporate CEOs?”

“So now, what’s your take on the significant discrepancy between average pay for workers and corporate CEOs?”  by Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com 4/18/24 

(Another question asked by Cousin Deb, a retired professor at Cornell University. She has a Ph.D. in Education, which she is valiantly trying to overcome. This is my emailed response.)   

The CEO- average worker pay gap? Oh, that’s something I worry about all the time. I can barely sleep at night thinking about that terrible, horrible injustice.  

Please. What corporations pay their CEOs and their workers are free market transactions, willingly entered into by consenting adults. Frankly, it’s none of my business and it’s none of yours.  

I realize that people whose sense of cosmic justice is offended by what they consider to be “too much,” whether a pay gap, or a salary or whatever, would like to pass a few laws to “correct” these things. Send in the Government. Badges and guns. Right. 

You and I can make it our business by buying a single share in the offending corporation, attend the annual meeting and propose to shareholders that we owners adjust that CEO worker average pay gap. Now if we can’t get enough shareholders to agree with us, what we can then do is gather like-minded people together and buy enough shares to simply take over the company or buy enough so we can control the board of directors.  

Or maybe we can start our own company to compete against that evil corporation. Or maybe just boycott their products.  

Gosh, all that would take a lot of work and might mean risking — GASP – our own money! Oh no. Pass a law. Send in the cops! Typical authoritarian impulse of the morally superior elitist, to whom I ask: “Who made you God?”  

It happens across the political spectrum, depending on the issue. Too many people want to use the power of government to “do good,” e.g., some pro-lifers would jail anybody involved in an abortion, nurses to patients. Sigh. 

Also, the pay gap that knots the knickers on elitist pinheads sometimes includes the result of stock options or stock sales, which can really skew the results. For example, a few years ago Elon Musk sold $3.5 billion in Tesla stock. That kind of alters the average pay gap, doesn’t it? 

More typically, it’s stock options the CEO cashes in that causes lots of heavy breathing in the same crowd that has no problem with Claudine Gay getting paid $900K. Harvard is private, so I could give a rat’s ass. 

I do give a rat’s ass when the president of our local WNMU is paid damn near $400k a year for a state job that I suspect could be done for much less. The government bureaucrats just take tax dollars and pay each other whatever they think they’re worth. I don’t like it but not much I can do about it but vote for people like me — or become a PhD. and cash in too!  (;~) 

I do have a slight problem with somebody like Elon Musk making billions upon billions when Tesla’s business, from cars to batteries, basically depends upon government mandates and tons of subsidies. He was smart enough to cash in, so I guess I can’t blame him for taking advantage of government stupidity. That stupidity IS our business! 

One last thing, The people who talk about taxing the billionaires as if those billionaires did something wrong or evil, don’t seem to realize that the great preponderance of billionaires in this country support liberal causes. The Google boys, Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffett, Bezos and on and on and on.  

I’d rather have a society where entrepreneurs get filthy rich, even liberal ones, than live in a society that punishes success out of some moral outrage at a perceived “inequality.” Bezos has billions of dollars in Amazon stock, the price of which is in some small part due to my business at Amazon and thank you Jeff, you liberal asshole. He didn’t steal a penny of his wealth and I have benefited greatly from his genius.   

I say don’t put extra taxes on any billionaire, lib or otherwise, because that means taking money out of private hands and putting it in government hands. No thank you. The government didn’t earn that money, in spite of what Obama says.  

The same goes for estate taxes, which should be zero. People who think heirs shouldn’t enjoy money that they didn’t earn are making moral judgments, playing God again. That also takes money out of the private sector and puts it in the public sector, where it’s usually wasted.  

Other than that, Deb, I don’t have any opinion on the topic. 

“What do you think about taxing wealthy folks?”

“What do you think about taxing wealthy folks?” by Peter Burrows 4/17/24   

(I was recently asked that question by my cousin Deb, who is a retired professor at Cornell University. She has a Ph.D. in Education, which she is valiantly trying to overcome. This is my emailed response.)  

“What do you think about taxing wealthy folks?” Oh, my. That’s a “prod the bear question” which I’ll try to answer without it shortening my life too much. 

In brief, for as long as I’ve been a reasonably informed voter, at least 55 years, the Democrats have made issues of “taxing the wealthy” and “paying their fair share,” whether it’s from individuals or corporations. 

It’s all demagogic BS and the Republicans have let them get away with it. These arguments are easily refuted by a look at the facts, and only once do I remember a Republican taking a Democrat to task about it. That was in a VP debate between Lloyd Benson and Dan Quail.  (Yes, I’m that old.) 

As I recall, Benson said something about evil President Reagan lowering the top tax rates and Quail responding that the lower tax rates actually raised MORE money, which was true. Benson then said something very revealing, something to the effect that higher tax rates may not actually raise taxes, but they would give the APPEARANCE of fairness. 

In other words, f— the facts and fool the people, or something like that. As ever, demagoguery depends upon an ignorant electorate. 

As an aside, I have also heard Democrats over the years say something to the effect that there are x-number corporations who make billions in profits yet don’t pay any taxes, and isn’t that unfair? So, vote for me, etc. etc., as if though once in office the Democrat will make those scofflaw corporations pony up. 

The problem is, once again, a little thing called facts. WHY don’t the corporations pay taxes? The implication is they are somehow breaking the law, when in fact the reason they don’t pay income taxes is because they didn’t earn any income! 

How is that you say? The answer is slightly arcane, but not so much so that the public wouldn’t understand if properly presented to them, something the Republicans fail to do, which is inexcusable. 

Corporations keep two sets of books, both of which are available for public scrutiny. Nothing secret here. One is for the IRS, the other for the shareholders, which is what is reported. What is reported are NORMALIZED earnings, i.e., what earnings would be if they weren’t affected by unusual or one-time occurrences.  

The most common discrepancy between IRS earnings and normalized earnings is the use of accelerated depreciation. Corporations use accelerated depreciation when reporting to the IRS and straight-line depreciation when reporting to shareholders.   

As an example, a company buys a delivery truck for $100,000 which has an estimated life of 10 years. The normalized depreciation expense would be $10,000 per year, but accelerated depreciation might allow the company to expense $50,000 in the first year. 

 (The same amount of depreciation expense is going to be deducted, accelerated depreciation just allows it to be deducted sooner rather than later. This saves money by lowering today’s taxes, freeing up funds that can be invested, etc.)  

When capital expenditures are in the billions or hundreds of millions, you can see how the added expense from accelerated depreciation could easily wipe out earnings. If the company then reported a net loss to shareholders, this could give a misleading picture about how the company’s business is doing.   

That’s why companies report “normalized” earnings, something I’ve long thought was foolish. Corporations should publicly report IRS earnings, with normalized earnings as a footnote. Investors and shareholders are sophisticated enough to figure this out, but the man in the street ISN’T, which is what the Democrats count on.   

Similarly, the Democrats depend on the man in the street not knowing the difference between income tax RATES and income tax RESULTS. The top individual rate today is 37%. The top rate when Reagan took office was 70%, which was cut to 50% in 1981, and the top rate when Kennedy took office was a stratospheric 91% which was cut to 65% in 1963. 

Both rate cuts resulted in tax revenue increases. What this means is that wealthy people actually paid MORE in taxes than they did before the rate cuts. An economist named Art Laffer became famous for articulating this in what is now known as The Laffer Curve, which you can check out in the Wikipedia link below. 

In essence, lower tax rates can result in higher tax revenues which is the case today. In fact, according to a recent article in Reason Magazine, “the wealthiest Americans are now paying a higher share of federal taxes than at any time in the past 40 years.”  

The article states that according to 2021 returns, the top 1% of earners paid nearly 46% (!!) of all income taxes, the top 10% paid 76% and the top 25% paid 89%. By contrast the bottom 50% paid only 2.3%. (See link below.) 

What this means, not surprisingly, is that there is a large constituency in favor of raising taxes because they don’t pay any. What a sweet deal.  

So, to answer your question, what do I think about taxing wealthy people? I think wealthy people are OVERTAXED and that the tax burden should be spread more evenly. That would mean raising the taxes on the bottom 50%. How many votes do you think I’d get running on that platform?  

As to raising taxes on corporations, this reflects a basic misunderstanding of how the world works. The rate of return on investment is always calculated after taxes are paid, which means taxes are considered an expense. Expenses are paid out of revenues, aka sales, which means that it is the CUSTOMERS who pay the taxes, just as they pay all the other expenses.  

Corporations only appear to pay taxes, which is good enough for the demagogues.   

Interestingly, politicians tacitly acknowledge this reality when they offer lower tax rates to attract corporations. Ireland, for example, taxes companies at only 15% while Biden wants to raise rates to 28% from 21%.  If you are an international company looking for a place to expand, all things being equal, you go to Ireland.  

In my opinion, the corporate tax rate should be ZERO. Competition would force corporations to pass the savings on to the customer, ergo, lower prices.  

Well, that’s not going to happen. No politician would ever propose zero taxes on corporations, let alone propose raising taxes on the bottom 50% of wage earners. Maybe if we had term limits we could expect some statesmanship from those we elect, which is one reason to have a Constitutional Convention, but that’s another issue. 

Now, aren’t you glad you asked?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

(The link to Reason Magazine that WordPress can’t open is to an article published April 12 by Eric Boehm, “The Real Tax Gap.” It shouldn’t be too hard to find.)

FYI, here is JFK’s Message to Congress, 1/24/1963, proposing lower taxes. If you didn’t know, you’d think he was a Republican!  

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress-tax-reduction-and-reform

“Is a Preemptive Strike in the Offing?”

“Is a Preemptive Strike in the Offing?” by Peter Burrows 4/12/24 elburropete@gmail,com 

This is a very important read. When Obama said Iran wouldn’t use nuclear weapons because it would be against their religion, he was 180° wrong.  Here’s a link to the article:

https://pjmedia.com/david-solway-2/2024/04/11/is-a-preemptive-strike-in-the-offing-n4928096

I’m glad to see that an MSM writer with a following has spelled out this apocalyptic Shia doctrine. Maybe somebody will inform Trump, who’s as clueless as Old Joe.  From the article:  

” Shi’ites believe that Allah’s kingdom will be established on earth by the Twelfth or Hidden Imam, whose “second coming” can be accelerated by creating the right set of circumstances, namely, the fomenting of violent upheavals in a holocaust of blood and fire among the nations of the earth — in particular, Israel. And the mullahs are just crazy enough to bring such a cataclysm to pass.” 

I wrote about this many years ago in “Monsters from the Id” which uses the old sci-fi movie, Forbidden Planet, as metaphor for our times. The conclusion is still relevant, more than ever:  

“The Iranians say they are not trying to build nuclear weapons, and even if true for now, their long range intentions are very suspect. They’ve been waiting for the Mahdi for over 11 centuries. A few more years, or decades, to gather the means to start the final confrontation with the Satanic West is of little import. 

“The number one question: Are they really planning to start a nuclear holocaust as a religious imperative?  If so, preemptive war, not Neville Chamberlain, is the only rational course of action.. 

“Question number two, maybe it’s really number one: Do we have the moral courage for such a course of action?” 

https://wordpress.com/post/silvercityburro.com/137

The “one issue” voter problem

The “one issue” voter problem By Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com 4/9/24 

Churchill once famously said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” These days, I don’t think it would take that long. I would bet a Don Juan burrito that the average voter can’t name their two senators or who represents them in the House of Representatives, let alone any details about budgets, foreign policy, etc., etc. ad infinitum.  

In defense of the average voter, in a world with so many complex issues, we can’t expect voters to be well-informed about all of them and, in fact, many voters simply don’t have the time or the interest to become well-informed on ANY issue. They look at only one thing when it comes to who they vote for: party affiliation. 

Given the bias of the media today, this gives the Democrats a huge advantage. It’s hard to imagine, for example, any Democrat president today getting an approval rating as low as the 22% given to Harry Truman who, in hindsight, was a pretty good President. That’s lower than the 24% approval for Richard Nixon in a poll taken just before he resigned in disgrace.(1)  

Truman’s readings may have reflected a media bias that was pro Republican back then. Today’s media bias is very much the opposite and probably accounts for President Biden’s approval rating of 40%, which is ridiculously high for an obviously incompetent, senile octogenarian.  If you suspect this rating hides a huge division of opinion based upon party, go to the head of the class. Sure enough, the Democrats give Biden a — get this — 77% approval rating (!!) vs. the Republicans giving him only 7%. (2) 

As for Trump, his recent ratings were 52.5% unfavorable vs. 42.6% favorable.(3) Once again, this reflects a huge division based on party, and while I couldn’t find any current polls, one from last July shows Republican approval for Trump at 66%, and Democrat disapproval a whopping 91%! (4) 

Never in my lifetime has there been such a huge, and heated, division. To say that Trump elicits an emotional reaction from voters is very much an understatement. Emotions trump facts, no pun intended, and what this means is that Trump is THE issue in this election: 

 A new Economist/YouGov poll’s findings revealed precisely what the 2024 election will be about. The survey showed that regardless of which side one is on, this race is all about Trump.(5) 

People voting their emotions can destroy democracies, which have a history of putting charismatic demagogues in power who then become dictators.  Hitler, Mussolini, Hugo Chavez, Juan Peron and Robet Mugabe come readily to mind. That’s why our Founding Fathers created a Constitutional Republic, sometimes called a representative democracy, in which the people elect representatives to govern. 

This puts a buffer between the “madness of the crowds” and those passing laws. The Founding Fathers wisely thought this wasn’t enough of a buffer to protect us from democracy — yes, PROTECT us from democracy — so they created a bicameral government in which one of the legislative bodies was not directly elected by the people: the Senate.  

Few people know this, but Senators used to be appointed by their state legislators, which meant that the Senate was only very indirectly elected by the people, i.e., was one more step removed from the madding crowds. This ended with the 17th Amendment, enacted in 1912 and effective for the 1914 election which was the first that saw senators elected directly by popular vote.  

My impression of the times is that the state legislatures were only too happy to let Senators be chosen by popular vote. Selecting Senators was one hell of a lot of work for the state legislators. Why not just let the people decide? More democracy! Sounds good, doesn’t it?  Not in hindsight.  

What this means is that the Senate today is composed of 100 people who, politically, are no different from their cohorts in the House of Representatives. Members of both houses are politicians, people who appeal to the general populace for votes and usually have as their number one priority getting reelected.        

Elections are expensive. Candidates often complain about the time they spend raising money, and this includes those people who are already in office. Senators, who originally only worried about lobbying their state legislatures, if that, now have to spend time raising money, kissing ass and placating special interests, just like their cohorts in the House of Representatives.  

Thus, the Senate is no longer much of a check on the emotions that might run rampant in the House, since they are also swayed by those same emotions. And that’s why this election is so dangerous. The 91 percent disapproval rating of Donald Trump from their constituents is something the Democrats in the Senate and House are very aware of.  

Furthermore, this is a STRONG disapproval. If some of the news announcers and talk show hosts in the MSM, especially on CNN and MSNBC, are any indication, some of the opposition to Trump is positively hysterical. I’m afraid Keith Olbermann’s thinly veiled sincere hope for Trump’s assassination is not an outlier. (6)    

Even if Trump can overcome swing-state voter fraud and actually win, we can expect a repeat of the “mostly peaceful” riots of 2020 led by the same Antifa/BLM masked thugs, except this time on a much larger, more intense scale. It would not surprise me if President Biden would then declare martial law. It also wouldn’t surprise me if the Democrats and RINO Never-Trumpers in Congress vote to overturn the election results to “save Democracy.” 

I hope I’m wrong. It’s ridiculous that this election is about Trump, who is a loud-mouthed New York asshole, NOT a threat to “democracy” or a dictator in waiting. Robert F Kennedy Jr. was quite correct to point out to an interviewer that Biden is a ‘much worse threat to democracy’ than Trump.(7) RFK, Jr. has also said voters deserve better than the ‘least of two evils’(8), something I thoroughly agree with. The problem is, with RFK, Jr. in the race, it would be the least of THREE evils.  

As impossible as it may be for some people to believe, there are a number of issues which are far more important than the specter of Donald Trump as president, issues I think Trump can deal with far better than Biden. The Biden Administration’s complicity in the illegal immigrant invasion is number one on my list because it is an open violation of the Constitution, Article IV section 4:  

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in the union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;” 

A Trump administration will stop the invasion and MAYBE prosecute those responsible. Maybe. “Maybe” is better than nothing. So, while Trump is a long way from being my first choice, my first choice isn’t on the ballot. I can only choose the “least of two evils” and compared to Biden, Trump is Mother Teresa. 

(1) https://news.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx 

(2) https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-BIDEN/POLL/nmopagnqapa/  

(3) https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/ 

(4) https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/21/little-change-in-americans-views-of-trump-over-the-past-year/ 

(5) https://redstate.com/jeffc/2024/04/03/new-survey-shows-exactly-what-the-2024-election-will-be-about-n2172287 

(6) https://www.foxnews.com/media/keith-olbermann-suggests-hope-trumps-assassination-x-post 

(7) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/02/robert-f-kennedy-jr-cnn-interview-biden-trump 

(8) https://www.audacy.com/wwjnewsradio/news/national/rfk-says-americans-deserve-better-than-the-least-of-2-evils 

Reader defends the Muslim race

Reader defends the Muslim race by Peter Burrows 1017/23 elburropete@gmail.com 

Last Friday, October 13, I posted in the online newspaper The Grant County Beat a link to my article, “Would the world be better off with no Jews or no Muslims?” This was an update to a 3/8/2022 article and was prompted by the recent Hamas attack on Israel.  

There was only one reader response, an email addressed to both myself and the editor of The Grant County Beat.  If it had been addressed only to myself, I wouldn’t be sharing it. Since it was also addressed to the editor, I assume the writer had no expectation of privacy and in fact may have wanted her letter to be published in the Beat.  (I have deleted her phone number. I doubt she wanted THAT public.)

For reasons that should be obvious, the editor decided not to post the reader’s opinions. I don’t have any such inhibitions and I think a hard-hitting criticism of my work might be enjoyed by many of you. First, you may want to read what so infuriated her:  

https://wordpress.com/post/silvercityburro.com/1149

Email from Shannon Salcedo, 10/13/23 

“It is the Muslims who are the worst of people and the Jews who are the best of people. I think it’s time the world recognized those facts.”  

This was thee most UNHINGED racist article I EVER read in my life, and Peter Burrows and the Editor have embarrassed the entire SW region of NM for having the gall to post this ignorant pile of manure. I would suggest to Mr. Burrows to get our of his dirty-poverty stricken-drug addled-government corrupt-County and meet other people. Sh*t, meet people who practice other religions bc he literally cherry picked a bag of sh*t and developed an article to demonize an entire race of people, and the editor green-lighted it. This Article of Idiocy makes me SOO happy I moved out of Grant County, and left the church, and only visit 3x a year bc these people are dumb and feed on ignorance.  

Mr. Burrows reeks of arrogance, privilege and hate in this article, and fails to realize he is a dinosaur on the verge of extinction. So, let me help fix this terrible headline for Mr. Burrows: 

“It is the Boomers who are the worst of people and the Gen-Z’rs who are the best of people. I think it’s time the world recognized those facts.” 

I plan on sharing this article with my 18yo daughter and all of her friends in Denver, just to remind them all how important it is to vote. People like Mr. Burrows are the type who will gladly deny a U.S. Tax Paying Citizen of any civil rights bc he’s white and privileged and has a nice pension. His writings are atrocious.  

Boomers like Mr. Burrows are the greatest threat to democracy and the environment, and his article continues to prove my valid point. “The senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin,” – Sen. John McCain and the only difference between Libertarians’ and Republicans is weed. 

To The Editor: If you need content writers, please contact me, I can help you. I’m currently working on —– (Deleted: Two paragraphs of suggested local topics the Beat should have articles about.) 

You don’t need to post racist hate filled articles on your site like this one. There’s tons of material to work with in Grant Co. for a great article. Just talk to the people. That’s what I did when I was in Bayard in late Sept. early Oct. and I have a world of content to write about. You need to put Mr. Burrows terrible content in a place NO ONE can find on your web-page. And keep it there. Sincerely, Shannon Salcedo C: (—) — —-E: shannon.salcedo@yahoo.com  

Here is my email response to Ms. Salcedo and the Beat editor: I would like to thank Shannon Salcedo for a thoughtful, reasoned and fact-filled analysis of my article. I especially wish to thank Salcedo for apparently assuming that Islam is a race. Most people don’t know that, and I think people of the Lutheran race and, especially, people of the Catholic race should take note of that insight. 

Shannon Salcedo then sent another email to myself and the Beat editor, although I don’t think it was a response to my email to her: 

You know, I should’ve calmed down before emailing you about your Article of Ignorance that I had read, but I was SO shocked. I’m used to seeing this kind if trash on Reddit or The Daily Caller. Rush Limbaugh would be proud of you, and he was a disgusting pig. 

Religion is cancer.  

Those who demonize groups of people over a Religion that is not the preferred by “Christians” are worse than a stage 4 colon cancer.  

Your Facebook page is dumpster fire of MAGA-chud talking points: 

1. Demonize minorities (you REALLY don’t like black people, OR Hispanics, Democrat voters, women, etc.)  

2. Climate denier (AZ and NM will run dry in 15yrs, CO river is toast) 

3. Obsessed w MSNBC headlines  

4. No minorities in your “FRIENDS” group. ALL whites. And old.  

You deserve to house and support every drug addicted baby born in Grant County; eat diesel exhaust and drink Bayard water for the rest of your days. My daughter and her generation will tell the next ones of how YOUR generation tried to kill them all w ignorance and greed, all so you could help Big Oil frack your back yard so you can run your a/c when its 150⁰ in June.  
Shannon Salcedo C: (—) — —- E: shannon.salcedo@yahoo.com 

Here is my response, which Ms. Salcedo has not yet answered.   

The religion you are defending commands – commands — the death penalty for gays, adulterers, apostates, and anybody who doesn’t convert to the religion of Islam or refuses to be ruled by the religion of Islam.  It also allows husbands to beat their wives, fathers to kill their children with no penalty, and lots of other sweet stuff like that. 

Are you defending Islam because you think it is a race? Islam is no more race than Christianity is a race, and Islam, like Christianity, has adherents who represent all the races of the world.  

You should learn something about Islam before you defend it. Maybe you could buy a Koran and read it. (I recommend the Mawdudi translation.) If you know HOW to read the Koran it will save you a lot of time.  Here’s a 20-minute guide, Intro to Summary: https://wordpress.com/post/silvercityburro.com/749 

                                                                              ### 

Would the world be better off with no Jews, or no Muslims?

Would the world be better off with no Jews, or with no Muslims? By Peter Burrows  10/16/23

In the Koran, which is the eternal and infallible word of God, we are told that Jews and Christians are “the worst of creatures.” God then tells us that Muslims are the “best of creatures.” Elsewhere in the Koran, God clarifies that Muslims are not just the best relative to Jews and Christians, but that Muslims are “the best of people ever raised up for mankind.” 

God also tells us that between Jews and Christians, it is the Jews who are “the most hostile” to Muslims while Christians “are closest to feeling affection” for Muslims. Thus, of the two “worst of creatures,” God leaves no doubt that the worst of the worst are the Jews. 

These revelations, some 1400 years ago, came at the beginning of Islam while Judaism had been around for hundreds of years.  The Jews obviously far outnumbered the Muslims then, but Muslims are fierce proselytizers, and in only a decade or two they outnumbered the Jews, who are anything but fierce proselytizers.  Today, the world population of Muslims is about 1.8 billion and the Jews only about 15.2 million, a ratio of over 100 to one.  

The Koran, however, does not say that Muslims were destined to be the MOST people, but that they are, and always will be, the BEST people. Since the Allah of Islam is all-knowing, all-wise, omniscient and omnipotent, surely after 1400 years He has enabled His Muslims to achieve a stunning array of achievements.   

At the very least, we should see these achievements reflected in the number of Nobel Prizes received by Muslims.  The Nobel Prize has been awarded since 1901 for accomplishments in physics, chemistry, and medicine. Economics was added in 1968. These are what I call the objective prizes. The two subjective prizes are for literature and peace.  

Since 1901, 609 Nobel Prizes have been awarded to 975 people (prizes are frequently awarded to joint efforts) and Muslims have received – Drum Roll Please – THIRTEEN!! Of those, only three were in the sciences, seven were Peace Prizes, three for literature. None of those were awarded to Saudi Arabians, who have preserved the holy cities of Mecca and Medina for 1400 years and could be considered the best of the best. In fact, not one Saudi has even been nominated for a Nobel.  

How does that compare to the Nobels received by the worst of the worst, the Jews? Wikipedia estimates that Jewish recipients were at least 20 percent of “over 900” recipients, and a Jewish organization estimates the number is “at least” 210. To be conservative, and to simplify the math, let’s assume that the number is 195, or 20 percent of the 975 recipients.  

That would mean that Jews, who are outnumbered by Muslims over one hundred to one, receive 15 times as many Noble Prizes. If my math is correct, that makes Jews FIFTEEN HUNDRED TIMES better than Muslims. If we just count the Nobels won in the sciences since 2000, which doesn’t count literature or peace prizes, the Jews outnumber the Muslims by 52 to one. (Fifty-two hundred times better?)  

Nobel Prizes are only one criterion to judge “best” people. Music, for example, is an area where the Jewish contribution to America, and the world, is endless, from Gershwin to Billy Joel to Itzhak Perlman. Very few know that both “White Christmas” and “God Bless America” were written by a Jew, Russian-born Israel Isidore Beilin, aka Irving Berlin.  Since Muhammad declared music to be sinful, the Muslim contribution to music has been zero.  

On the other side of the coin, how do the two religions compare in crimes against humanity as opposed to contributions to humanity? Here, there is no question that Muslims are far ahead of Jews. No group of people have been more murderous than the followers of Islam. While it is true that the followers of Karl Marx have caused an impressive amount of mayhem, they were not fellow Jews. The Torah and the Talmud do not command Jews to forever wage war against unbelievers, as the Koran does for Muslims.  

I use the word “forever” even though the Muslim holy war, jihad, will cease when Muslims make Islam “prevail over all religions, howsoever those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity might detest it.”  After 1400 years, Muslims are still only about 23 percent of the world’s population, so they continue to soldier on. Last month, September of 2023, there were 104 attacks in 22 countries that killed 550 and injured 482. Six of those attacks were suicide bombings.

Those numbers are from thereligionofpeace.com and I shudder to think what the final October numbers will be.

Since the spectacular jihad attack on the Twin Towers in 2001, there have been over 41,000 such attacks. Last year, 2022, “there were 1993 Islamic attacks in 52 countries, in which 9002 people were killed and 6715 injured..”  I couldn’t find the totals since 9/11/2001 on The Religion of Peace website, but those numbers would just reinforce the overwhelming evidence that the only thing Muslims are good at is killing innocent people.  

So, let us return to the question: would the world be better off with no Jews or no Muslims? I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Koran got it exactly backwards. It is the Muslims who are the worst of people and the Jews who are the best of people. I think it’s time the world recognized those facts.  

p.s. A note on my personal bias. When I was a kid, I wanted to play the clarinet like Benny Goodman and had a crush on opera star Roberta Peters, both Jews.  Seventy years later, I still want to play like Benny but I’ve ditched Roberta in favor of Julie Budd. She’s Jewish, too. 

Sources:  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_Nobel_laureates

https://www.newsweek.com/imams-called-death-jews-trump-jerusalem-announcement-776941

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-nobel-prize-laureates

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2022

Toward Understanding the Qur’an, Sayyid Mawdudi translation, verses 98:6, 98:7, 3:110, 5:82, 9:33. 

Reliance of the Traveller, f40.0, Music, Song, and Dance, pgs. 774-776 

Book review: A Concise Guide to the Quran by Ayman S. Ibrahim – 2020, Baker Publishing, 176 pages

Note to readers: Amazon had this as the top critical review until December 1, when it was removed. There had been six who had found it “helpful.” I can only speculate as to why it was removed, but, regardless, it is censorship.

Book review: “A Concise Guide to the Quran – Answering Thirty Critical Questions,” by Ayman S. Ibrahim, 2020, 176 pgs. $19 Amazon. Reviewed by Peter Burrows 10/4/2023 

Ibrahim was born in Egypt and raised in a Coptic Christian family. He grew up surrounded by Muslims in a society steeped in Islam.  His public schooling had heavy doses of Islamic history, Arabic and Quranic scripture.  He has two PhDs in Islamic Studies, one from Fuller Theological Seminary (USA) and the other from University of Haifa (Israel) He is Professor of Islamic Studies and director of the Jenkins Center for the Christian Understanding of Islam at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. 

Bottom line: Professor Ibrahim is very knowledgeable, which makes him extremely dangerous because he teaches that Islam can be reformed into a nonmilitant, nonthreatening religion — and he is wrong! 

Initially, I thought this was probably a matter of economic necessity.  After all, I doubt there is a professor of religious studies in North America who is allowed to teach the truth about Islam. (I hope somebody proves me wrong. Hillsdale?) But then, on page 116, he reveals a distressing and dangerous misunderstanding of Islam: 

“In the spring of 2018, I led a group of American students on a teaching trip to Dearborn, Michigan. Dearborn has the largest Muslim population in the United States. Many of my American students had never entered a mosque, so I decided to take them to a mosque in the city. I also wanted them to hear about Islam from a Muslim. I hoped to break their fear of the unknown, in this case, Islam and Muslims.” 

Two things are wrong here: (1) A proper understanding of Islam should INSTILL a fear of Islam and Muslims; (2) Learning about Islam from a Muslim, especially an imam, is the worst way to learn about Islam.  

I can only conclude that Professor Ibrahim either has huge holes in his knowledge about Islam, or else he is simply incapable of seeing the truth about Islam, for whatever reason. Islamic law, Sharia, dictates that Muslims must wage war, jihad, against unbelievers until the world is ruled by Islam. If it requires lying to the non-believers in order to achieve this goal, lying is obligatory. No Muslim can question this. 

Under penalty of apostasy, for which the divine punishment is death, no Muslim can befriend a non- Muslim. The fact that Dr Ibrahim has a dear childhood friend who is a Muslim only proves that this particular Muslim is probably a decent person. Probably. The fact that the Muslim friend hasn’t been killed for his friendship with a Christian could conceivably be because he has persuaded his would-be Muslim assassins that he is engaged in deceiving Dr Ibrahim and for proof, just look at what Ibrahim writes and teaches about Islam!   

Islamic law, sharia, is almost completely ignored by Ibrahim. He mentions sharia twice in the body of the text, and then only in passing, and once in the glossary. Sharia rules Islam and sharia dictates that any Muslim who has an opinion about anything in the Quran that differs from traditional scholarly opinion is an apostate, and apostates “deserve to die.” (Reliance of the Traveller, A Classic Manuel of Islamic Sacred Law, pg. 596)  

In addition, Muhammad warned: “Whoever speaks of the Book of Allah (the Koran) from his own opinion is in error” (Reliance of the Traveller, pg. 751.), and the Koran Verse 33:36 tells Muslims, “ it is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and his messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision.” (Khan – Al-Hilali translation.)   

Therefore, it is delusional to contend, as Ibrahim repeatedly does, that individual Muslims can have opinions that differ from sharia and that these opinions can lead to fundamental changes in Islam. He refers to such Muslims as “modern,” “progressive,” “liberal,” and that these Muslims can “legitimately” practice their own versions of Islam.  Such Muslims are either apostates or propagandists engaged in deceiving gullible infidels. 

He writes, “— one should be thankful for the modernist Muslim thinkers of recent years, especially in the west. They swim against the tide in opposing traditional Muslim claims. Their interpretation seeks to advance values of mutual respect, peacebuilding and religious freedom between Muslims and non-Muslims. They read Quranic statements about fighting non-Muslims, jihad, and violence as merely remnants of the past. They believe these statements are descriptive not prescriptive.” 

Precisely what we “should be thankful for” escapes me since the only thing these so-called Muslims have accomplished is to promote the deception that Islam is in fact peaceful or that Islam can be changed. Islam cannot be changed; it must be rejected. What these people are describing is not the religion of Islam. Perhaps some of them, such as Zuhdi Jasser, are sincere, but most are knowingly deceiving non-Muslims into accepting the cancer of Islam into their societies. 

In a couple of areas, Ibrahim’s scholarship appears to be severely lacking. He contends, for example, that the Satanic Verses were abrogated when they were eliminated. There’s a big difference between eliminating a verse in the Quran because it was not a revelation from Allah and abrogating it because Allah had a “better” revelation at a later date.  

He also seems to think that the doctrine of abrogation is debatable, which it isn’t. The Reliance of the Traveller on page 626 has as a requirement for being an Islamic judge a knowledge of both abrogated and abrogating verses. On page 752 the layman is warned not to interpret the Koran without such knowledge. 

To question, deny or ignore abrogation is a standard tactic of those who defend Islam. At least twice, Ibrahim cites abrogated verses without mentioning they are abrogated and therefore invalid, which is inexcusable. (2:190 which authorizes jihad only in self-defense, abrogated by 9:36 or 9:5; and 29:46, which says use only peaceful persuasion with People of the Scripture, abrogated by 9:29 which says to strive against them until they are “utterly subdued.”)   

He even claims some Muslims think that Chapter 9 may not belong in the Quran because it lacks the introduction that other chapters have. I have never read of such a doubt.  Chapter 9 is the penultimate and most militaristic chapter in the Quran, and for a Muslim to assert it may not belong in the Quran is apostasy on steroids.  

An especially distressing example of poor scholarship is his description on page 91 of verse 9:30: “The Jews say, Uzayr is the son of Allah, while Christians say, the Christ is the son of Allah —.” Ibrahim then writes: “Of course, no one knows who this Uzayr is.”   

When I read this I said to myself, “Which version of the Quran has this guy actually read?” One of the Qurans he mentions is the Khan-Hilal translation, a 1990’s translation published in Saudi Arabia, in which verse 9:30 reads, “And the Jews say: Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah —.” Another translation he mentions is the 1930 Pickthall translation in which 9:30 simply reads: “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah–” 

One translation he doesn’t mention is my personal favorite, “Towards Understanding the Quran,’ a translation completed in 1973 by the Pakistani scholar Sayyid Mawdudi. In it, 9:30 reads: “The Jews say Ezra (‘Uzayr) is Allah’s son —.” Of my four Qurans, only the 1934 Yusif Ali translation fails to identify “Uzair” as the Jewish prophet Ezra – who was NEVER worshiped as a son of God by the Jews, another proof that the all-knowing “Allah” needed an editor. 

In spite of these puzzling gaps in the author’s knowledge, there are some parts of the book which are outstanding. I give Five stars to Part 1 in which he effectively refutes the standard Islamic narrative concerning the history of the Quran. He ends this section by writing, “Without a doubt, the traditional Muslim claims about an unchanged and unchanging Quran will eventually come back to hurt the Muslim cause.”  

Unfortunately, he doesn’t reach the same conclusion when answering his question number 26: “What does the Quran say about Jihad and fighting?” While he concedes the Quran ordains fighting, he dismisses the importance of this by claiming it’s only the literalists, such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda, who act on those verses: “But Muslims are not all the same. How do Muslims usually treat versus like these related to fighting non-Muslims?” 

How Muslims “usually” treat the militant verses in the Quran is irrelevant. They have a religious obligation to obey those verses and in Muslim-ruled nations this is unquestioned. The only reason those nations are not in open warfare with non-Muslim nations is because they know they couldn’t win such a war — yet. 

There’s much more I could criticize in detail, e.g., his attempt to deflect the reality of jihad by noting it can also mean an internal struggle for salvation, which is true but hardly relevant, or his contention that Muslims who advocate following only the Quran, “People of the Quran,” offer a glimmer of hope, as though the Quran isn’t bad enough.    

Bottom line: this is not a concise guide to the Quran but more a concise guide to wishful thinking about Islam. For a truly concise guide to the Koran and Islam as it really is, spend 20 minutes or so, Introduction to Conclusion (Appendices extra): https://wordpress.com/post/silvercityburro.com/749 

Walmart: Marxist icon

Walmart:  Marxist Icon by Peter Burrows 7/19/23  elburropete@gmail.com  

When I was in college, over half a century ago, I took a course on Marxism.  I wasn’t trying to fire up any anti-capitalistic fervor, I just wanted to learn something about an economic philosophy that ruled so much of the world at the time, or at least was the pretense for ruling so much of the world.  

I say ‘pretense’ because Marxism has never made any economic sense. It’s a utopian vision utterly at odds with human nature. In brief, Marx thought that capitalism would so skew wealth and income toward the owners of capital that the working class, the proletariat, would eventually break the chains of their “enslavement” and expropriate the means of production, converting it all property to common ownership, making it public property.  

Freed from the exploitation of the capitalist class, there would “inevitably” be “an enormous development of the productive forces of human society.” Eventually, this would allow the goodness of human nature to prevail, pettiness would disappear and there would be an “inevitable” withering away of the state, which would completely disappear when society lived by the rule: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. 

www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm 

Not only does this assume that mankind is basically good, for which the evidence is decidedly mixed, but that mankind is overwhelmingly altruistic, for which there is absolutely no evidence. This means the “withering away” of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” might take quite a while, like forever.  

Marxism has thus become the means for a dictatorship OVER the proletariat, it’s only possible outcome. Indeed, most see Marx’s utopian ideal as an impossible dream. 

Or is it? 

Some years ago, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States began to thaw, and the two nations entered a period of detente, with all sorts of people-to-people exchanges, smiley faces, bear hugs and whatnot.  I particularly remember watching a show, probably on PBS, in which a group of visiting Russian businessmen, as such they had in those days, was being given a tour through an American supermarket. 

One of the visiting Russians pointed to some cans on a shelf and through his translator asked, “Why are there so many different kinds of beans?”   The tour guide, obviously chosen for abilities other than economic insight, became quite flustered and picked up a can and said something to the effect, “Well, it’s because this kind of bean goes well with that kind of bean.“  Oh, my. 

Think about it.  The supermarket owner has a finite amount of shelf space.  To use this space most efficiently, the owner wants to maximize his sales per square foot, or cubic foot, whatever.  Why would the owner put a particular brand of bean on the shelf?  Because people BUY it. If they don’t buy it, it is soon replaced by a different brand. 

There are brands of similar, but not identical products, throughout a supermarket.  There may be ten kinds of toothpaste, six kinds of bread, five kinds of frozen pizza, and on and on and on. The modern American supermarket is a cornucopia of wonderful things, things unimaginable to my grandmother.  (It’s rumored that when former Russian leader Boris Yeltsin first walked into an American supermarket, he looked at the vast sea of products and wept.) 

To the Russian visitors, it didn’t make sense to have so many different brands when having one, maybe two, was so much more efficient, so much easier to stock.  What the Russians didn’t realize was that the store wasn’t being run for the convenience of the managers.  In competitive markets, stores succeed or fail depending on how well they “convenience” the customers. 

Indirectly, IT’S THE CUSTOMERS WHO RUN THE STORE! 

If I had been running the tour, I would have put my arm around the Russian and pointed to the nearest lady pushing a shopping cart and said: “See her, comrade? In Russia, you would call her a member of the proletariat. Now, if that proletarian lady doesn’t like the selection in this store, if she doesn’t like the prices, if she doesn’t like how she’s treated, if she doesn’t like the parking, or if she doesn’t like the ladies room, she will take her business elsewhere. She will fire us. 

“Multiple her by ten thousand and this store will close, we will all be looking for jobs.  The ten thousand customers won’t have a meeting at the soccer stadium and put it to a vote. They won’t have to go to that much trouble. They just won’t come here anymore. They will fire us without lifting a finger. 

“You know why they can fire us? Because they are free to shop where they like. We can’t tell them where to shop.  They tell us because THEY run things. Welcome to the dictatorship of the proletariat, comrade.” 

The next time you’re at a Walmart, take a look around.  There are thousands of products.  Walmart is constantly bringing in new products, changing prices, doing seasonal displays, putting stuff on sale, and on and on. It’s the world’s largest private employer.  They got that way because they bust their butts trying to keep the proletariat, aka the customers, happy. 

The irony is that neither Cuba nor North Korea, two of the last of the “Peoples’ Republics,” has a single store like your local Walmart.  If they did, you can bet the proletariat wouldn’t be allowed in. That store would be for the exclusive use of the ruling class.  Hey, around here you and I are the ruling class. Just ask Walmart. 

Or, for that matter, ask Anheuser-Busch how their sales of Bud Lite have been doing lately. 

Why aren’t ocean front properties plummeting in price? Zillow’s White House crony, that’s why

Why aren’t oceanfront properties plummeting in price? Zillow’s White House crony, that’s why – by Peter Burrows 7/10/23 elburropete@gmail.comhttp://www.silvercityburro.com 

For forty years we’ve been hearing dire warnings about how Global Warming (always capitalize a religion) is going to wreak havoc with humanity and cause exponential increases in droughts, floods, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, crop failures, snowstorms, UFO sightings, and climate refugees — who will number in the tens of millions. (OK, I made up that bit about UFOs.) 

A key part of the Global Warming apocalypse is that the melting poles are causing sea levels to rapidly rise. New York City, Washington, D.C., Florida and many other coastal areas around the world will soon disappear beneath the waves. That part about Florida caught my attention a few years ago. It was right after I had had a medical procedure that mostly old guys experience and it was an epiphany of sorts: Soon, I will be no more. 

Coming to grips with this existential fact, I realized that I wanted to spend my last days somewhere warm, both because where I live now is too damn cold and also to get a little acclimated to my probable hereafter. Why not, I thought, move to Florida, find a spot that still has a little beach left, then just lie down and float away, another casualty of Global Warming. Beats a hell of a lot of alternatives I can think of.  As an added bonus, I wouldn’t need to spend much on a place to live, maybe nothing at all. Must be lots of abandoned beach homes down there as people flee the ever-encroaching, unforgiving waves. 

With that in mind, I googled online realtor Zillow and looked for properties in my number one Florida-fantasy destination: Key Largo.  Bogie and Bacall, don’t cha’ know.  Well, was I in for a shock!  Those damn fools down there apparently hadn’t heard of Global Warming because not only were they not abandoning their homes. they were asking MORE for their properties than they had paid for them! A LOT more! 

A place I really liked, right on the ocean with a sea-wall, was listed for $5.6 million. The owner had paid $2.4 million back in 1996, fully eight years after NASA’s James Hansen famously warned Congress about Global Warming. 

Some people just don’t get it! 

I mentioned this to my favorite Liberal, and she said anybody buying those Florida properties would be damned sorry, or something to that effect.  I could tell by the look on her face that she had no sympathy for such fools. (I wrote about all this an article, “Global Warming, where is thy sting?” You can find it at http://www.silvercityburro.com, 4/18/15.) 

Well, here it is eight years later and Global Warming, now called Climate Change (genuflect), has become a terrifying reality, so much so that the head of the United Nations recently made a not too subtle call for a stop to the use of all fossil fuels — NOW — to save humanity:  

António Guterres lashed out at the fossil fuels industry following a meeting with civil society groups, the Associated Press reported. The industry, he said, is “trading the future” for money. Guterres urged them to move “away from a product incompatible with human survival. The problem is not simply fossil fuel emissions… It’s fossil fuels – period,” he said.” 

Al Gore, who shared a Nobel Peace Prize back in 2007 with the UN in the wake of his climate crisis documentary, “An inconvenient Truth,” has also been hyperventilating about the dangers we are now facing. At the Davos Forum last January, he cited the increase in greenhouse gases: 

” That’s what’s boiling the oceans, creating these atmospheric rivers, and the rain bombs, and sucking the moisture out of the land, and creating the droughts, and melting the ice and raising the sea level, and causing these waves of climate refugees.” 

Boiling the oceans!! OMG! You can be sure that caught my attention. I thanked my lucky stars that I hadn’t moved to Florida back in 2015. I mean, I can think of better ways to go than being boiled. 

This is all very depressing, so in an effort to cheer myself up, I went back to Zillow to see just how big a drop in property values those beachfront-buying fools have suffered since 2015. A little schadenfreude. (I can be so petty.) Naturally, I started with Key Largo and — GASP!– doing your laundry in the boiling oceans down there in Key Largo is going to cost you mega bucks, a lot MORE than in 2015!  Here’s a couple of examples, but I urge you to do your own shopping. Very interesting! 

There was a two-story, maybe three story, at 48 S Andros Rd: 4 bd 4 ba, 3,024 sq ft for $3.5 million. Built in 1969, it sold in 2021, a mere two years ago, for $2 million.   

There is a much more modest place at 113 1st Ct,: 2 bd 2, ba, 800 sqft for $750,000. Built in 1964, it sold in 2019 for $334,000. (Zillow’s estimated value is $695k, which would mean in the last four years the value “only” doubled.)   

It was the same story wherever I looked in Florida: A modest little bit of new construction at 104 Ladoga Ave. In Tampa just listed for $12 million (6 bd, 8 ba 7,416 sq ft.) Zillow thinks it’s worth “only” $11,469,300. Mind you, this is a SPEC house. If that is a little high for you, there’s a nice condo at 5701 Mariner St in Tampa, unit 502, only $499,999 (2 bd 2 ba 1,424 sq ft) The complex was built in 1975, and this particular unit sold for $130,000 in 1998 and $189,000 in 2000.

If Miami is more to your liking, you will find the real estate market is just as insane. I saw an island property at 1384 S Venetian Way for only $12,900,000 and I think it was a man-made island. There’s just not enough beachfront property in the Miami area, so they have to make more, e.g., The Venetian Islands.  

Thinking maybe it’s just Florida that’s whacky, I looked to that model of sanity, California, only to find a new home on the beach at 24186 Case Cty. Malibu, with an asking price of $69,995,000 (5 bd/10 ba 10,527 sq ft.) This is another home built on speculation, and I have to think anybody putting this much money in a spec house must know the market pretty damn well. (Don’t you admire the seller’s clever price listing at just below $70 million.  Makes it look a lot cheaper. Right.)     

I looked elsewhere around the world for signs of waterfront sanity. No luck. I saw a sweet little number on the French Riviera for $27 million, nice view of the Med. In Tahiti, an “on the lagoon” property built in 1995 was asking $1.7 million. In Hawaii, there was a beach condo at 280 Hayoli St. (#B17,1 bd/1 ba 555 sq ft) asking only $375,000. Built in 1972 before Climate Change was a threat. It was sold in 2021 for $200,000. Maybe the buyer didn’t know about the rising oceans back then and is now trying to find another climate dummy to unload it on – for an 85 percent profit on a two-year investment.  Nice work if you can get it. 

Bottom line, I guess I’ll have to come to grips with the reality that I will not live long enough to enjoy the inevitable price collapse in Florida beach properties.  And, I know who is to blame: Barrack Hussein Obama. Some of you are thinking, “Are you off your meds again, Burro?” 

Not at all. I very clearly remember what Obama said in his victory speech in November of 2008, and I should have believed him. He said his election “was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow.”  And, folks, Obama puts his money where his mouth is: In 2019, the Obamas paid $11.7 million for an ocean-level estate on Martha’s Vineyard; and when it gets chilly in Massachusetts, they fly out to their $8.7 million beachfront villa on Oahu, purchased in 2015. 

That’s over $20 million of his own money. On the beach. The media doesn’t report on that, do they? They also didn’t report what Obama said right after his slow the rising oceans comment, and I sure wish they would have. It would have saved me a lot of trouble:  

“Verily, Florida realtors will continue to prosper and old wannabe-beach-bum climate-deniers will wait in vain.” 

It’s only Cosmic Justice, folks. After all, I didn’t vote for him.