Do you freaks Google your leader’s name every hour on the hour or something?

Every time I post something about that scumsucking, tiny-dicked, racist, bigoted Jew-hater, his defenders pop out of the woodwork.

Really, people, get a hobby.

Then again, check out the literacy level of this defender—from Canada.

l personal admire to this person for been willing to be honest as a witness of the real truht about the historic movement zionist that has keep,d blind to many generetaions about the real porpuse of this movement that now like other time control the decisions plitical and military that the real american pay with their own life and money for the only ambition and the supported adventure of their partner that also are criminals of the uwn americans, so americans wake up now you are a wonderfull people and you don,t deserve to be used for criminalss for others interest

Geez, we could add that last line to the LGF rotating quotes.

That’s right, folks, David Duke, the man who couldn’t even fill a room at the Sheraton in Richmond in his farewell tour before hitting prison, has such eloquent defenders as “opener mind” from Toronto.

Here’s a hint for all you David Duke fans out there: Don’t mess with this blog. You really want to stick to your neo-Nazi buds over at Stormfront or Rense.

Oh, and before I go, let me give you a rousing sendoff with the Yourish.com mantra: Anti-Semites of the world, just die already. And, I might add, painfully.

Say, you know that post I wrote this morning? Just a few short hours ago? The one where I said this:

You gotta love the Reuters headline, though. “Gunmen Kill Hamas Judge.” Yeah, those mysterious “gunmen.” If it had been the IDF, it would have been, “Israel Kills Hamas Judge.” But no, there’s no anti-Israel media bias.

Update: And the AP has changed its headline as well. It now reads “Gunmen Kill Hamas-Linked Judge in Gaza.” You know, those gunmen who have no affiliation, unlike, say, IDF soldiers.

Say hello to the AP/Reuters anti-Israel bias.

Reuters:
Israeli troops kill Palestinian gunman in Gaza
GAZA, Dec 13 (Reuters) - Israeli soldiers killed a Palestinian gunman near the Gaza Strip boundary on Wednesday, witnesses and military officials said, the first such death since a truce was declared in the territory on Nov. 26.

Medical officials identified the man, who was shot dead opposite the boundary fence from the Israeli village of Nahal Oz, as a member of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction.

“He approached the fence, armed with a rifle and grenades, so our troops opened fire,” an Israeli military spokesman said, adding that the soldiers in question were outside Gaza.

Note the identification of the palestinian terrorist, and lack of identification of the Israeli spokesman, who did not ask to remain anonymous. It’s the dehumanization of Israel that you see in most news reports. The victims of terrorists attacks by palestinians are almost never identified. Terrorists killed by the IDF are almost always identified, often with quotes from family members.

AP:

Israeli troops shoot Palestinian along Gaza-Israel border
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip: Israeli troops shot and killed a Palestinian militant along the heavily guarded border between the Gaza Strip and Israel Wednesday evening, Palestinians and the military said, despite a two-and-a-half week cease-fire.

The army said the militant was approaching the fence with a weapon and grenades when he was shot by troops.

Palestinian security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press, said the militant, 22, was in no-man’s land along the fence when he was killed.

Notice again the dehumanization of the Israeli spokesman as “The army.” Notice the long description of the anonymous “security officials” in contrast to the Israeli official, who again, did not request anonymity. How do I know this? Because it has been the media’s policy for many years now to use the anonymity qualifiers. (It stems back to yet another media scandal about sources, but I have forgotten which one. There have been so many.)

This is why Israeli is vilified. The media already does half the job.

This confusing story (ht: Joel G.) is leaving me wondering whether it’s better to have an outright enemy, who makes no pretense at liking you give you the news, or an erstwhile friend, who makes no pretense at bashing you give you the news. Either way, you’re screwed. Perhaps that’s why Israeli satellite provider Yes dropped BBC World for—hold onto your hats—Al Jazeera English.

Although BBC World will still be available in Israel via cable, it will lose around 50% of its audience in the country as a result of being dropped by Yes.

Al-Jazeera English signed the carriage deal with Yes last month, but the damaging consequences for BBC World have only just emerged.

One BBC executive said: “We are disappointed but hopefully they will come back to the negotiations.”

The deal with Yes takes al-Jazeera English’s global reach to around 80m households.

The market for rolling international news is become increasingly crowded, with new rivals to BBC World and CNN.

In addition to the launch of al-Jazeera English, France 24 began broadcasting last week.

Gee, what a choice: The anti-Israel BBC, the anti-Israel al Jazeera, the anti-Israel CNN, or the anti-Israel France 24. And you have to love this understatement by the Guardian about the BBC anti-Israel bias:

The BBC has had a difficult time over its coverage of Israel, with regular accusations of bias coming from both the Israeli and Palestinian sides.

Earlier this year an independent panel was set up by the corporation’s board of governors to review its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Remember, the BBC refuses to release its report, which shows how bad the anti-Israel bias is. But we already knew that, didn’t we?

The Gaza Civil War Watch escalates.

Palestinian gunmen forced a Hamas commander to his knees and fatally shot him early Wednesday outside of the courthouse where he worked as an Islamic judge, escalating factional tensions in the Gaza Strip.

The shooting came two days after the killing of the three young children of a Fatah-allied Palestinian intelligence officer, which sparked fresh conflict between the rival Hamas and Fatah factions. The violence has reduced chances for a unity government and pushed the two sides closer to civil war.

Palestinian security officials said the slain man was Bassam al-Fara, 30, a jurist at the Islamic court and a Hamas commander who belongs to the largest clan in the southern town of Khan Younis.

I wish it would happen, but I’m sure it won’t. They keep pulling back from the brink. Although, the guy was from the largest clan in Khan Younis, and palestinian society is very much clan-based. There will probably be revenge killings.

If it did happen, Fatah would win. They vastly outnumber Hamas.

You gotta love the Reuters headline, though. “Gunmen Kill Hamas Judge.” Yeah, those mysterious “gunmen.” If it had been the IDF, it would have been, “Israel Kills Hamas Judge.” But no, there’s no anti-Israel media bias.

Update: And the AP has changed its headline as well. It now reads “Gunmen Kill Hamas-Linked Judge in Gaza.” You know, those gunmen who have no affiliation, unlike, say, IDF soldiers.

It seems that a new kind of war is looming, totally unexpected by all and sundry military experts: Queenan against Cohen. That is, Joe Queenan an American film critic vs. Sasha Baron Cohen the major piss taker on this side of XXth century.

A personal aside: I have never been Cohen’s cheerleader for both his main characters (Ali G. and Borat). There definitely were a few funny moments, and Borat at his early development stage has made a splash, especially when taking quite a few customers in a US watering hole for a ride with his “Throw the Jew down a well” song. Even in this latest movie there are a few genuinely funny moments, although I would not part with my hard earned 30+ shekels (about $7) to see it. I have already seen a few clips, and enough is enough. SBC has become a one trick pony, squeezing the last drop out of the Borat persona. Too rude and vulgar (even) for my taste in the majority of his latest tricks.

But here we have a case of a serious overreaction by a film critic who has gone postal. Witness the plethora of names he found for Cohen: “odious twit”, “pig”, “public school boy” (is it a crime nowadays?), “another odious twit from Cambridge” (a brilliant “aggregated” insult, should all Cambridge graduates join forces?) and, on top of that one, “Cambridge-educated Jackass” in another article. Mr. Queenan has obviously lost it on the way to his keyboard and since we are not acquainted (he may be a 300 pound gorilla for all I know), I wouldn’t want to find myself in his warpath these days. He is so mad at Borat and the whole world that even his fellow critics got bashed on the way: “annelids who masquerade as film critics at most US newspapers and magazines“. Annelids. Wow.

And what bothers Mr. Queenan in the opus of Sasha Baron Cohen? He briefly mentions a few deadly sins, such as sexism, homophobia and obsession with bodily functions (I don’t even know what to say, after all I am not as close to SBC as our film critic seems to be). He dedicated more time to what he perceives as Cohen’s hate of Americans. But at the conclusion of the article even this sin was waived: “Personally speaking, it does not bother me that Baron Cohen hates Americans; some of my best friends hate Americans.”

So what was it that enraged Mr. Queenan most of all? It’s simple: “But it bothers me that my fellow Americans are making yet another odious twit from Cambridge rich.” See how simple it is? Money, money, money…

And that rage, obviously, pulls our learned critic down to the gutter level in this passage:

But the men who flew the bombing raids over Berlin and the men who died at Omaha Beach and the women who built the Flying Fortresses and Sherman tanks that helped defeat Hitler are the very same people that Baron Cohen pisses all over in Borat. A lot of folks named Cohen would not even be here making anti-American movies if it were not for the hayseeds he despises.

Would it help if I reminded our enraged bull here that some of these “hayseeds” that died, built and helped were also named Cohen? Or it will only confuse him further? Or to remind him that, with all due respect, the hayseeds did not succeed to save a lot of these Cohens after all… Nah, waste of time.

I better continue his line of thought and add that if it were not for these hayseeds, he, Joe Queenan, would not be gainfully employed writing rumbling, illogical, hysterical and plainly stupid articles for the Guardian about the assorted Cohens. Could have been gainfully employed by Der Sturmer, though. Writing rumbling, illogical, hysterical and plainly stupid articles about the assorted Cohens…

The whole tempest in a teacup raises some questions:

• Why should a serious (?) film critic bother himself with such an obviously sub-standard production at all? Will a normal film critic waste his time on, say, “Jackass the movie”?
• Why is he raving like a lunatic? Anger management issues or simply a lunatic?
• And the most intriguing - why has the Guardian published this shit at all?

There is no accounting for tastes or for the lack of thereof, and the rage of our fine critic caused by the financial success of that movie is rather pitiful. One side of Joe Queenan shines brighter than anything else; as the Jew90 says, correctly: humorless buffoon.

Via Jew90

Cross-posted on SimplyJews.