More Child Abuse

 http://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2022/02/slippery-slope.html

The above link is to a post at Craig's blog, wherein he refers to further evidence of the "de-stigmatizing" of pedophilia, which like with the cases of "de-stigmatizing" of homosexuality and "transgenderism", is more likely to result in more widespread acceptance of the practice.  Dan, being a defender of deviancy, immediately jumped in to argue the point (actually arguing that which was only mildly related to the point...because he's Dan) and use the post as an excuse to presume right-wingers are more likely to be child molesters than lefties.  But even the title of the post suggests the point was referencing the so-called "slippery slope" argument and how the current climate regarding pedophilia validates the argument quite well.  

And far more relative to the point than who is engaging in such vile behavior are those who promote or enable it by their pseudo-psychological, quasi-philosophical discussions about "de-stigmatizing" the urges which lead to bad behaviors.  I get that having a desire for some non-traditional, unChristian, immoral form of sexual gratification doesn't guarantee indulging in the desire.  But the desire is still as vile, immoral and unChristian nonetheless and "stigma" doesn't enter into it.  That is, except that it is deserving of the stigma.  It should be vilified for the contemptible sin it is.

The sin of child abuse is among the worst sins, even according to Christ Himself.  And to pretend there is any other group than leftists (and those who wish to simply say they are "socially liberal" are no different) who have pushed all manner of behavior which have harmed or will harm our children is a lie.  What follows is a report from AmericanThinker.com which illustrates another way in which lefties are harming our children (and jeez, there are so many ways!):

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/02/tony_school_in_dc_forces_5_yearolds_to_parade_around_chanting_black_lives_matter_for_the_cameras.html

This is pure indoctrination.  The lefty teachers pretend their promoting goodness...that differences are normal and not a reason to hate.  They do this with the bullshit claim of promoting diversity, identity and inclusion, which lefty-speak for "what we consider worthy of including".  

The particular chant these kids are forced to repeat over and over is especially egregious for a couple of reasons.  It is NOT promoting diversity, but promoting the lies that the BLM movement promote regarding race relations.  It is NOT promoting inclusivity because it necessarily EXcludes those who are not black.  If the chant was "ALL LIVES MATTER", they could make their claim as that is undeniably inclusive...not to mention absolutely true.   But would this school have these little ones chant, "FETAL LIVES MATTER"?  I doubt it.  Why aren't they promoting respect for the police with their chanting and marching?  BLM does not provide for that respect at all.  

The left exploits kids and to argue they aren't the only who do is irrelevant.  To argue they aren't the worst perpetrators of child exploitation is a straight up lie given how often we hear them (particularly Nancy Pelosi) expect us to believe "it's for the children" every time they struggle to get some bill passed.  A proper understanding of the the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is that it promotes the individual.  But not the self-centered understanding of the leftist (assuming they give a flying rat's ass about the Constitution in the first place).   

This post focuses on one specific example of leftist child exploitation.  It isn't the only example. 

Our Butthead In Chief: Part Zwei---Disregarding The Constitution

Since the election of Joseph Robinette Biden ("Robinette"???  WTF???), I've been trying to put together a post which began with Our Butthead In Chief:  Part the First and promised a series presenting what fools were those Americans who didn't vote for Trump for an incredibly well deserved second term.  The blatantly obvious stupidity of those who withheld voting or worse, actually voted for Biden...or anyone else not named Trump, for that matter...has not weakened the contempt in me which that stupidity provoked.  That contempt welled up from the moment the fraudulent results were announced, and it's grown exponentially with each passing day since that day which will live in infamy along side Pearl Harbor.  We have only the hope of the midterms to abate our national suffering those unprincipled/low principled/principle-confused voters have wrought. 

 

And the avalanche of horrors this moron has brought down upon us shows no sign of stopping.  It's like flood waters which won't recede and we continue to seek ways to keep our heads above water and from being swept away by it.  Too many have lost businesses and jobs because of this man and his policies.  Too many have lost their lives because of them, too.  And while lefties falsely (as in blatantly lie) about Trump and the GOP trashing the Constitution to rule over America, Joey Plugs ignores the Constitution repeatedly like it's his job. 

 

Among the many examples of the aforementioned disregard for the Law of the Land is the debacle at the border.  His reversal of Trump's border policies have resulted in hordes of illegals flowing into our nation without vetting, and worse, being sprinkled around the nation in the dead of night so no one can see it happening.  In the meantime, he and his Dem whores dare tell us we need be concerned about the sovereignty of Ukraine????  Since when does the sovereignty of the Ukrainian border mean more than our own?  This dipshit is ready to send troops for the purpose, but won't send any to aid border control officers in Texas, Arizona and elsewhere!  No.  Not Joey Ice Cream Cone!  Joey Ice Cream Cone is going to assume reports of them whipping Haitians is true (note to readers...I have absolutely no problem with whipping invaders if that's all it takes to get them to go back to the other side of the border they had no right to breech).  

 

Butthead Biden is Constitutionally obligated to defend our borders.  He would rather keep citizens righteously pissed at the shoddy and fraudulent election results than to continue building a wall to keep terrorists and cartel mules carrying deadly drugs from coming over the border.  

 

But our "president" is not concerned with the Constitution any more than any other lefty is...Dem or otherwise.  The Constitution to these people is a punchline as well as an obstruction to their desire for total power and control.  And where else have we seen this kind of crap from this guy some actually believed would be a better president than Trump?  To name a few, we have:

 

---Forcing citizens to take experimental drugs without their consent.

 

---Denying landlords the right to evict tenants for non-payment of rents.

 

---Selecting cabinet members, and now SCOTUS nominees on the basis of race, sex or sexual perversity. (This obviously is a rejection of all who do not check the boxes so important to the deviant, despotic left).

 

---His recent comments to a group of cops suggesting he once again wishes to impose gun control laws, while pretending doing so in no way violates the 2nd Amendment.  

 

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=568842711036574

 

Louisville lunkheads like to puke on and on about how corrupt Trump was as president without citing any corrupt action he's ever taken.  Yet, in all the above cases...and those I failed to mention...Biden has demonstrated a willful disregard for our Constitution and laws, both of which he swore to defend and enforce.  Indeed, it's his job as chief law enforcement officer of the nation.  But like all leftist LEOs, he intentional craps on our laws and in doing so, craps on us. 

A Kind Of Book Review

 I'm not the reader some people are.  I do have my moments, though.  When it comes to novels, I've been focused for the last couple of decades on "classics", such as anything by Dickens (maybe my favorite), Alexandre Dumas (the Musketeer trilogy and The Count of Monte Cristo), James Fenimore Cooper (I need to get his other Hawkeye stories), Herman Melville (I really have to finish Moby-Dick, and I need to get Billy Budd---loved the movie). 

I also like to read books by people I follow who have a solid understanding of the current events and the political scene, like Mark Levin.  I'm hoping to get to his latest book "American Marxism" eventually.  At my current pace, it might be out of print by the time I'm ready to get it, or the country may be totally given over to leftist stupidity and his books burned and his ass jailed.

And while I have books on any number of subjects, the third favorite category is history/biographies.  I've read bios (autobios, actually) of several rich people which pretty much contradicts what lefties say about their motivations and attitudes toward everyone else.  But mostly, I favor historical figures, particularly American historical figures.  I'm less than two hundred pages away from finishing a sizable biography by a Yale history professor named, David W. Blight.  He's also their Director of the Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance and Abolition.  The book is "Frederick Douglass:  Prophet of Freedom". 

As I say, it's a fairly sizable tome, 764 pages of print small enough to compel me to buy readers with greater magnification than what I now use.  It's one of three books I have regarding Douglass, the others being a new book by Brian Kilmeade, "The President and the Freedom Fighter: Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, and their Battle to Save America's Soul", and Douglass' first autobiography (I think there's three), "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave".   I bought the last and Blight's work together late last summer, and the Kilmeade book I got for Christmas, along with Brett Baier's book on U.S. Grant.  (Where will I find the time?  I'm way to busy wasting it.)

I was going to wait until I was finished with the book before posting anything on it, though that could be late next summer at the rate I'm going.  But as I was knocking out a dozen pages, I came across something which came up several times throughout my reading.  That's the political leanings of the author.  Blight is clearly a lefty.  Now, for the most part, I can't really say that it has tainted the entire book.   I'll need to read the other two to get any sense of whether or not that's possible.  But the dude does insert his left-leaning opinions now and then.  He's taken the liberty to castigate modern Republicans with little asides which do not truly reflect modern Republicans so much as the left's false opinion of them.  I wish I had highlighted them in some way, but there aren't so many that with each one I found, I didn't believe I'd come upon another.  Here's one I somehow managed to go back over one hundred pages to find:

"The freedmen's needs would require what the orator called 'all the elevating and civilizing institutions of the country.' Modern Republicans, eager to find a black spokesman for personal responsibility, have not bothered to read deeper into Douglass."

What in the wide, wide world of sports is THAT supposed to mean?  That Republicans only care about black people who make them feel better?  What an asshole!!  This isn't reflective of Republicans or conservatives I've ever known!  It does resemble the patronizing so typical of the modern Democrat/progressive, that's for sure!  

Here's the one which made me stop reading to publish this post:  (pardon the length of it)

"This is a prototypical case of a prominent black spokesman whose forthright statements about his people's behavior and self-criticisms were appropriated by racist forces.  Douglass was a worried, ambivalent man in the mid-1870s, and feeling his sense of authority dissipating.  A year after the Hillsdale speech, he still found himself defending it to the American Missionary Association.  In a letter to that organization's journal, Douglass reasserted his desire for 'justice...more than alms,' even as he welcomed their aid.  Above all, he did not want the violent white-supremacist Democrats using his words to their ends any more than he could stomach the 'sectarian and selfish purposes' of the 'hungry class' out to life the destitute Negro of their imaginations.  We have watched this scene so many times in modern American politics: current Republicans, some of whom love to appropriate Douglass, lifting him out of context to use him in service to causes he would abhor."

Like "what"?  He provides absolutely nothing in the way of examples.  It's clearly a lefty thing.  Dan will love this guy!!   He's probably among the historians who gave Dan the tingles in his lady parts by trashing Trump in presidential rankings (what a joke that was!).

But why do that?  Is this an attempt to draw a parallel between then and now?  Should authors just assume the reader gets whatever he's trying to reference.  Surely he has something specific in mind, so why be coy?  Isn't the whole point of such books to teach and enlighten?  David McCullough is a fine historian and biographer.  I've read his books "1776", "John Adams" and "Truman".  I can't recall anything like this in any of them.  I've read Kilmeade's book "Andrew Jackson and the Miracle of New Orleans".  Nothing like that at all in his book, and Jackson was a Democrat!  I've read books on Lincoln, even Cap't freakin' Bligh and no injection of partisan hackery has ever been present to my recollection.  (One exception is raving atheist Christopher Hitchens' dinky...188 pages...bio of Jefferson, "Thomas Jefferson:  Author of America".  It seemed the book was an excuse to highlight what Hitchens wanted to believe was Jefferson's own atheism.  He simply had issues with organized religion...not religion itself.  But one can't get past a few pages without another reference to how Jefferson allegedly had no use for religion.  In Hitchen's case it was a blatant lie, given the rich bounty of source materials which prove otherwise.)

Again, perhaps I'll find in reading the other two books that which takes me back to something I read in this one which further taints it.  Conceding that possibility exists, I still would recommend the book.  It does have tons of details about the guy and his life and work.  Aside from Blight's indiscretions, I've enjoyed it immensely.  There was a time when I would have lost several hours reading it, so it does tend to hold one's attention while informing.  I just wish Blight would either have elaborated on his cheap shots about today's GOP, or provided legit examples that justify them as well as make the connection he pretended was obvious. 

 

I Don't Care If You Find This Post unChristian

The turnout for the funeral of the murdered NYC cop, and the sad and passionate lament of the cop's wife is an egregious indictment of the state of our society.  The constant attacks on police by leftist activists and politicians has made the safety of the innocent and law-abiding more tenuous than I've ever seen it.  The enemy of the people...the lefty media...mocks accurate reports of how bad it truly is, and we see examples on a daily basis, this remarkably well-attended funeral but one of them.  

---This cop and his partner are two of at least half-a-dozen cops shot in the last two weeks across this decaying nation.  

---While Mayor Lori Lightfoot concerns her dumbass with moronic Covid restrictions ("Show me your papers, old man"), denying people their God-given right to do business and to patronize businesses as they see fit, Chicago is breaking records for murder.  Small children have been the victim of about eight of them in recent months, like Melissa Ortega, 8, who took two in the head while she and her mother tried to flee the gunfire from a 16 yr old Latin Kings punk who was on probation (rather than rotting in jail) for THREE armed car-jackings in the past year.  Last September, 4 yr old Mychal "M.J." Moultry Jr. was killed when shots tore through a front window of his home.  SAY THEIR NAMES, YOU DEM SUPPORTING ASSHOLES!!!!

 ---While we're on the subject, cities are reporting a stiff increase in car jackings.

---Thanks to funding by Lord of Evil George Soros, we now have District Attorneys who are refusing to prosecute punks and thugs who victimize people and businesses.

---Lefty mayors and city councils have "reformed" bail policy by doing away with it, or lowering bail so much as to allow assholes to continue roaming the streets and attacking citizens.

---These same assholes allow people to steal up to $950 worth of other people's stuff without anything more than a misdemeanor arrest, if they're arrested at all, and generally aren't bothering to prosecute when they do. 

---And of course, no list of criminality allowed by Dems would be complete without mentioning the now millions who cross our borders, get a free bus, cab or plane ride to the destination of their choice, so long as it isn't Wilmington, Delaware or the Hamptons.  Many of these invaders have criminal records, have been deported at least once before, bring drugs to traffic and girls, too, and are violent gang-members or known terrorists.  

This is by no means a comprehensive list.  Don't forget the rioting and looting in the summer of 2020!  But make no mistake:  THIS IS WHAT COMES FROM VOTING DEMOCRAT!  Democrat policy has put us all at risk in a variety of ways, but this post is a focus on crime...which can kill you. 

So what to do?  Well, I was pleased to see a video of a jewelry store owner defending against a couple smash and grab assholes by confronting them and then pulling out his handgun.  There have been two or three stories of a citizen shooting assholes who try to jack their cars...some with videos.  There's nothing more gratifying than seeing a criminal get what he asked for in not so many words.  (Well, seeing them turn to Christ would be better, but I'm referring to what should happen to those in the act of committing crimes.)  Some would call this "vigilantism".   But it's not.  A vigilante goes out to track down criminals as a cop would.  These people are merely defending themselves as is their God-given right.

We need to oppose all district attorneys, mayors, legislators and even police chiefs who allow criminals to run amuck in our communities, and have them removed for office...and possibly sued or indicted.  REfunding police is essential.  REinstate qualified immunity.  Support cops who fire on criminals and ignore the lamentations of the morons who failed to raise them properly when they had the chance.  Eliminate failed gun control laws which have done absolutely nothing to reduce crime, but have made hapless victims of too many law-abiding citizens.  Increase penalties and bail requirements.  REinstitute stop-an-frisk and broken windows policies. Re-incarcerate all violent thugs released from jails due to covid or overcrowding.  Mock and belittle morons whose efforts and activism for police and prison reform has resulted in the increase in crime we're suffering today and who have exploited the deaths of thugs by cops who were arresting or detaining them as if they were innocent angels minding their own business.  The race hustlers who did that are evil bastards who should be held responsible for every riot they're racist, cop-hating rhetoric has incited.

And most of all, make crime hurt the criminals who perpetuate it.  Punishments should be severe.  They must be made afraid to live a life of crime, to strut around as proud members of some animal street gang or organized crime outfit.  

We need an America which is safe for Americans and I don't give a flying rat's ass for the suffering of those who seek to oppress and victimize the innocent.  

Harder To Scratch The Itch

 I like engaging in "lively debate" and discourse...even if it's only at Dan's alternate reality of a blog.  But I have to admit that I find dealing with opposing points of view more personally entertaining, and there isn't much available for such except Dan's world of wonder.  Depressing.  There used to be so many options, but not so many now.  On the blogs, Dan's the only leftist left, so it's really like having only stale bread to eat when one is hungry.

Even on Facebook, the lefties have fled.  There weren't that many on my friend list, and among the few who were, most have stricken me like the cowards they usually are.  Lefties don't like being forced to defend their points of view.  So they run away.  The same is true of the lefties that were on my lefty blog roll.  I don't get it, except that it's most likely they're confronted by that which they know is true, but aren't happy it is so.  Better to flee and pretend it doesn't exist.  And I don't require agreement...like Dan does...but only that one present a coherent defense of their positions.  

I think many would still be around if I never questioned their positions...if I "agreed to disagree"...a moronic proposition if ever there was one, because that's not really what they want.  What is wanted by those who say this is to not be questioned...to allow them to carry one with beliefs and opinions they couldn't defend if their lives depended upon doing so.  What they really want is to just not engage any longer, because that's easier than looking at their goofy opinions and seeing just how goofy they are.  

I began trying to engage in the comments following stories on AOL.  Like other home pages, stories scroll across.  Yahoo had it, too, for a while and then discontinued the option out of some bullshit concern for civility.  AOL has limited which stories allow for comments.  Stories about LGBT issues no longer allow comments.  There's simply no option for it.  Some other topics deny as well.  Now, I've run into another issue there, which may be related to my computer or may just be their own shortcomings technically.  What happens is that when one leaves a comment, it stores responses under a notification drop down.  Click on any given notification, and it would take you back to that story and go right to the comment to which a response was given.  It won't do that anymore...or at least hasn't been for a couple of weeks.  It will bring you back to the story, but it only presents three or four comments of people with whom you didn't engage, and then it appears to have a link to all the comments the story generated from readers.   But not only does it no longer take you to your conversation, but when you click on the hyperlink, nothing happens.  Thus, one can't carry on with a conversation, or even know if the respondent is in agreement or opposing.  Very frustrating.  

So I guess I'm left with Deletion Dan. 

Great.

Who is Colin Flaherty?

Has anyone who still reads this blog ever heard of Colin Flaherty?  He just passed away at 66 of cancer.  I wondered why I hadn't seen anything from him in awhile.  As reported by Thomas Lifson of AmericanThinker.com:

"Colin was a fearless crusader, taking up one of the most taboo stories in modern America: the rising tide of Black violence directed against other races, egged on by racial grievance-mongers.  This was long before BLM." 

You can read Lifson's eulogy here:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/01/colin_flaherty_rip.html

I've read most (never counted to know for sure) of his offerings at AT, and even visited his web-site, where he posted lots of videos of events turned violent at the hands of "youths".  Of course, he pointed out what the media wouldn't, that the "youths" were black youths.  They aren't always young people, either.  What's more, he had a standing challenge of big bucks for anyone who could provide examples of other races paralleling this behavior.  (I would suggest that suppression of his work played at least a small roll in this challenge never being taken up, but who knows?)  

Flaherty's work was...and still is...important.  We can never resolve racial issues if we aren't completely honest about it, and that honesty includes admitting episodes documented so exhaustively by Flaherty.  I would expect that these episodes are abhorrent to many, if not most of the black community, yet they persist.  And part of the reason is the lack of light shining on it by race-hustlers and the media.  Again, if we're not honest...

I invite anyone to look him up, try to find his website if still available, and see if you can respond to his challenge with something actually verifiable.  In the meantime, I think it's too bad Colin Flaherty and his work aren't more widely known and appreciated. 

I expect to hear from the real racists upon the posting of this piece.

Demonic Desmond Tutu

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7923725288901074422&postID=8475466675623261887

The link above is the most recent posting at Dan's blog.  It's an homage to Desmond Tutu following his death.  As is his wont, Dan is keen to laud the lives of people in a manner which suggests sainthood.  Indeed, the title of the post is "Rest in Glory, Desmond Tutu".  It brings to mind thoughts of heavenly welcoming, perhaps sitting at God's right hand or something.  I did a little reading of some of the many articles praising the man for all his work to end apartheid in South Africa.  Work not defined in any way, but apparently it was essential to its downfall.  One gets the impression...by both the articles, but especially from Dan's worship of the man...apartheid would be ongoing today if not for old Des.  

Now, this isn't to say that I don't regard his work against that system as worthy of praise.  I'm just not clear on what he did exactly which justifies the degree of praise lavished upon him.  I'm not trying to be dismissive here.  I really would like to know and in at least one of the many comments of mine Dan deleted, I asked just that.  Was the BDS strategy his idea, or did he learn of it and then run with it?  That's OK.  To promote a good idea is something everyone should do.  To come up with it is of course more worthy of compliment, but again, I really don't know.  But if all he did was preach, teach and publicly speak out against apartheid there and abroad, that's without a doubt notable all by itself and also worthy of praise by all.  And even more so if by doing so he was putting himself or his liberty at risk.  Was he ever at risk?  Did he do time?  Was he beaten for speaking out?  Was the S. African government routinely stifling opposition speech at all?  Again...I ask because I do not know and as these questions concern Tutu, it would have been nice to have some of these things referenced in the many reports about his death.  If he was so essential to the ending of apartheid, one would think it should be easy enough to describe just how.  So far, zilch.

But at Dan's I was the first to post a comment, sometime prior to December 27, 2021 at 9:15 AM when he deleted it, saying, "Marshal, you will not attack Or attempt to demonize people who have just passed away on my blog. Shame on you."  I don't recall that I "attacked" or attempted to "demonize" the guy at all.  I don't recall exactly what I said, but thus Dan gets his wish.  He now demonizes me by deleting my comments and leaving the above admonishment in its place.  When his only other reader...his troll, feo...read it, he no doubt believed I said something horrible about the man.  

In any case, my comments simply questioned in how much glory might Toots rest after spending so much time lying about Israel and their struggles with the murderous Palestinians who constantly launch rockets and suicide attacks on the civilian population based on the false premise that they are oppressed by Israel.  It's a legit question and no small thing given just how egregious the lie is.  To attempt to compare Israel to apartheid S. Africa is appalling given there is no comparison one can justly make.  

So as I sought to defend myself and my wonderment, Dan insisted I provide something to support my position...to explain what Tutu said that was false, wrong or in any way improper.  I did so.  Dan deleted those responses on the flimsy excuse regarding the bias of my sources.  I tried to explain to the low intellect fake that bias shouldn't be his concern, but only whether or not what is reported is true or not.  Then we get the old "out of context" crap.  But what's out of context about calling Israel "oppressors" or "occupiers" or "an apartheid state"?  How does anyone get the wrong idea about Tutu's position about Israel when such words and phrases are used to label them?   

So true to form, Dan eventually responded with biased sources of his own, because his sources, those he supports are always just and truthful in what they say and are beyond reproach.  He cited:

 Human Rights Watch

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/why-has-human-rights-watch-become-an-anti-israel-activist-group

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/04/experts-slam-human-rights-watch-for-biased-and-inaccurate-report-accusing-israel-of-apartheid/  (note the word "experts".  Dan's down with "experts" always)

https://nypost.com/2021/01/29/a-new-libel-against-israel-from-human-rights-watch/

Amnesty International

https://www.camera.org/article/amnesty-internationals-latest-anti-israel-campaign-targets-jewish-tourism/

https://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/amnesty_international/

https://www.ngo-monitor.org/books/amnesty_international_failed_methodology_corruption_and_anti_israel_bias/

The United Nations

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/26/the-united-nations-releases-an-anti-israel-blacklist/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/un-human-rights-council-continues-its-anti-semitic-campaign-against-israel/ar-AAKuwBK

Yesh Din 

https://jewishbubba.blogspot.com/2013/10/yesh-dins-anti-semitic-anti-israel.html

https://www.ngo-monitor.org/hrws-and-yesh-dins-israel-bashing-at-the-un-security-council/

https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/cases-in-israeli-courts-and-accusations-of-apartheid-eu-funding-for-ngos-in-action/

The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa

I was unable to find anything about this outfit that wasn't from their own website, but Dan posted some quote of theirs which is just more of the same attempt to frame Israel as unjust occupiers and oppressors.  Given who is running the show in S. Africa since the end of apartheid, I wouldn't put too much stock anything from there without something reviewing their work as objective outsiders.  

In any case, as one can see if one chooses to read the few out of many articles I selected for this post, Dan's sources have their own serious biases and their positions are decidedly anti-Israel/pro-Pallie.   Outfits like NGO Monitor and CAMERA describe how these organizations fail in their reports indicting Israel.  Like Dan himself, they're way too often ignorant of the complex situation between the two peoples (I can't call "Palestine" a nation, because it isn't one), and too simple-minded in their superficial understanding.  When a people have in their charter the goal of annihilating Israel, it's hard to take pity on them when they suffer the consequences of moving toward that goal with rockets and suicide bombers and other murderous activities.  It's been said that if the Pallies laid down their arms, there would be peace in the land, but if Israel laid down their arms, they'd be destroyed.  It's also been said that peace will only come when the Pallies love their children more than they hate Israel.  

And all the tropes employed by these many NGOs and lefties in general to disparage Israel for daring to protect its people were echoed routinely in the words of Desmond Tutu.  I can't see that a guy like him, who traveled the world to tell it about the suffering of South Africans has no way of educating himself on the truth of the situation in the Middle East.  Thus, he was intentionally lying out of some misplaced regard for murderers.  Or he was really stupid.  Is it enough to deny him "Rest in Glory"?  I think he'll be in the back row somewhere if he wasn't any worse than his irrational enabling of the Pallies makes him.  

Of course, I never did get to his enabling of sexual immorality.  

UPDATE:   https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/was_archbishop_desmond_tutu_antiisrael_or_an_antisemite.html