As the debate continues over the political and economic courses America will follow, take a few minutes to be reminded of how our country has endured. Meet some of the men whose sacrifices have given us the freedom to have the debate at all.
To commemorate the latest video showing a cute anthropomorphic Hamas animal teaching murder, martrydom, and Jew-hating to a generation of children, I have decided to give you a short history of the cute, evil characters. I found all these by browsing through Hot Air posts, or conducting YouTube searches based on those posts.
It started with the Jew-hating Mickey Mouse.
This video shows Mickey-Mouse-resembling mouse Farfour being given the documents that prove Palestinians own Palestine. Then an evil Zionist beats him up for not giving up the documents. Finaly, Farfour ends up in prison, and Saraa, the bloodthirsty little girl who hosts these programs, tells us that he was martryed defending his land, by the same murderers who killed Muhammad Al-Dura and other children. (Al-Dura’s death was very likely staged, but don’t expect Saraa to tell you that.)
Replacing Farfour the mouse was a giant bee named Nahoul, the cousin of Farfour. You can see him in action here. He says: “I want to continue the path of Farfour — the path of Islam, of heroism, of martrydom, and of the mujahideen.”
This is a culture of death, so Nahoul had to die as well — of Zionist neglect in a Gazan hospital. In the next video, which is embedded below, we see doctors giving CPR to the giant bee, which they do in the classic Palestinian style — about four pumps per second.
Then a new character — a bunny resembling Bugs Bunny — asks what happened to his brother Nahoul the bee. Eventually, the bunny is told: “He’s not in any hospital. He died a martyr’s death, Allah have mercy upon him.” The bunny is determined to take the bee’s place in the hearts of Gazan children, just as the bee took the mouse’s place.
In a conversation with Saraa, we hear the bunny talk about the glory of seeking martyrdom and eating Jews — yes, I said eating Jews:
Bunny: We are all martrydom-seekers, are we not, Saraa?
Saraa: Of course we are. We are all ready to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our homeland. We will sacrifice our souls and everything we own for the homeland.
. . . .
Bunny: And we will take Al-Aqsa?
Saraa: Of course, Assud. We will liberate Al-Aqsa from the filth of those Zionists.
. . . .
Bunny: But I, Assud, will get rid of the Jews, Allah willing. [Jumping up and down] and I will eat them up, Allah willing, right?
Saraa: Allah willing.
Here’s the video:
Here is the short clip of Assud exulting at the thought of eating Jews:
Here is our friend Assud calling for the murder of Danish cartoonists who dared picture Mohammed:
Here is an image from the Hot Air post that alerted us to this charming video:
In this video, Assud the Jew-eating rabbit dies due to Zionist aggression. No English subtitles, but you can figure it out.
The latest character, we learn today, is a cuddly bear. Here is the conversation between the cute bear and the little zealot Saraa:
Bear: Saraa, Allah willing, I will be one of the mujahideen, one of the fighters. . . . I will wage Jihad among them, and carry a gun. Do you know why?
Bear: To defend the children of Palestine.
Here’s the video:
It’s not just cute characters. On Palestinian TV, we also get to hear from real-life children whose mom did the greatest thing any Palestinian could do: namely, kill Jews.
Here is a video in which the host chats with children of a female suicide bomber. It’s smiles all around as they proudly talk about how many Jews mom killed:
Host: What did mama do?
Child: She committed martyrdom.
Host: She killed Jews, right?
[Girl smiles and nods.]
Host: How many did she kill, Muhammad?
Host: How many Jews did mama kill?
Child: This many. [Smiles and holds up five fingers.]
Host: How many is that?
[Girl also smiles and holds up five fingers.]
And you guys are worried about the children being raised by Octomom?
In a story about upcoming partisan battles, the L.A. Times says of the stimulus bill:
Most Republicans took no hand in crafting the enormous bill, brushing aside Democratic concessions such as including more tax cuts than Obama wanted, cutting back expansion of access to Medicaid to help the jobless, and other bows to GOP priorities.
What a bunch of jerks those Republicans were, taking no hand in drafting the bill despite allll those Democrat concessions!
The few concessions that were made were hardly a lovely gesture towards the concept of bipartisanship, as the paper suggests. They were a necessary compromise to obtain the bare minimum of GOP votes to overcome a Senate filibuster. But don’t look for the article to explain this fact. Instead, it portrays Democrats as interested in bipartisanship but unable to achieve it:
Democrats, meantime, displayed an unwonted level of unity with a calculation of their own: that voters would credit them with championing the idea of bipartisanship and not hold it against them if they did not produce it.
History is being rewritten in front of our eyes, friends. Nancy Pelosi wrote this bill behind closed doors and shut Republicans out of the process — and now, the L.A. Times is blaming Republicans for not participating in the crafting of the legislation and portraying Congressional Democrats as unsuccessfully trying to achieve bipartisanship.
By the way . . . good news! The argument for Obama’s health-care program? It’s relatively cheap! Hey, at least it isn’t a trillion dollars!
On the other hand, having visited the $1-trillion threshold, the $100-billion-plus cost of Obama’s healthcare plan may look like a rounding error.
The article also revisits the paper’s comical notion that there is a “consensus” on governmental intervention in health care. Recall that I recently mocked the paper for referring to an alleged “emerging consensus that the federal government must act decisively to help cover the roughly 46 million people in America who lack health insurance.” I noted that there is something short of a consensus about what to do about health care in this country.
The L.A. Times is just now starting to figure this out:
The stimulus debate gave important hints about how difficult the push for comprehensive healthcare legislation will be. Fights erupted over health provisions in the stimulus bill that had been considered consensus items: creating a nationwide system of electronic medical records, and comparative research about which medical treatments work best.
Hmm. Exactly who had considered these to be “consensus items”? Democrats in Congress? The guys at the water cooler at the L.A. Times?
I hate to say I told you so . . . ah, who am I kidding? I love saying that. I told you so. I told you there was no “consensus” on these issues! I told you so!
There also was tension — even among Democrats — about efforts to expand Medicaid, which critics said was a step toward creating government-run healthcare.
“The lesson here is that in healthcare nothing is easy, simple or widely agreed,” said Robert Laszewski, a health policy consultant.
Really? You don’t say!
So to sum up: those Republicans really should have taken a hand in crafting the stimulus; the Democrats tried to be bipartisan but were rebuffed. Also, it’s a shock that expanding government’s role in health care is controversial — we thought these were consensus items!