Saturday, December 31, 2011


According to reliable sources, CAIR is saddened...gee, that's too bad.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is an anti-civil rights organization based in Washington, DC, but with chapters in most American cities. It often makes the news by calling for FBI intervention in local law enforcement matters, Department of Justice investigation of zoning laws, boycotts of American businesses and employees, lawfare against individuals and organizations it considers enemies of Islam, and intimidation of those who criticize CAIR or Islam. Members and officers of CAIR have variously supported a victory mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero, the nuclear destruction of Israel, the replacement of the U.S. Constitution by shariah law, the criminalization of free speech, and infiltration of the government by operatives dedicated to a "stealth jihad." Recently, CAIR pressured web-hosting service to drop an anti-jihad blog called "Bare Naked Islam."

(Note: To distance itself from CAIR's demands, WordPress has reinstated BNI till 6 Jan 2012)

Bare Naked Islam's watch-phrase was, "It isn't Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you," which strikes a chord with many people, except of course Islamophiles and CAIR minions, to whom there are no such things as Islamic terrorists. On there other hand, a quick look at the terrorists being hunted by the FBI...

...shows a distinct lack of non-Muslims or those who have retained their "slave names." This is the sort of thing CAIR rails against when using a combination of lawfare, intimidation, pressure and governmental intervention on law enforcement agencies which conduct anti-terrorism training -- they protest trainers, materials and techniques whenever it appears Islam or Muslims are being portrayed. All too often, CAIR is successful in its legal and PR blitz, shutting down effective programs and enabling the efforts of terrorists.

CAIR's softness toward Muslim terrorists comes naturally. Not only were its original founders connected with the terrorist group Hamas, but the extremist political party Muslim Brotherhood sees it as a way of creating inroads in American society and culture through a "quiet jihad" of education, persuasion, legal action and infiltration. CAIR acts as a very public Fifth Column, much as the American-Deutscher Volksbund did prior to WW2, protected not only by American naivety and innate good-naturedness, but by constantly hiding behind the Constitution and the American flag; Americans have a soft spot toward those who claim persecution, soft even to the point of ignoring the obvious racism and intolerance of those making the claim -- hence, the media and liberals look the other way when CAIR threatens Muslims for not towing the line or violates the free speech of those with whom they disagree, which brings us back to Bare Naked Islam.

Although denies dumping of the Bare Naked Islam blog-site has anything to do with the pressure brought against them and the FBI by CAIR, this is one time I have to give CAIR the benefit of a doubt, something usually not done. CAIR has many friends in the government, especially the Department of Justice, despite the decision made by the FBI to officially cut ties with the secretive and furtive organization; with a phone call, CAIR can obtain a meeting with a Justice Department officer, even one not connected with the Muslim Task Force established by Attorney General Eric Holder, himself a past advocate for FALN terrorists.

Not everyone is saddened by CAIR's successful attack on the free speech rights of the blogger behind the Bare Naked Islam site. Two of the leading voices are Examiner and the oddly named Little Green Footballs (aren't those, colloquially, "boogers?"), both of which are apologists for Islamofascists, proponents of CAIR's agendas and active crypto-jihadists, whether wittingly or not. They are but two of the many voices on the Internet who use their free speech rights to attack and vilify those who, in their opinion, do not deserve the protection of the First Amendment. They are at odds with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, which has constantly upheld the rights of free speech, to the point where the justices have stated that the more controversial, the more hateful, the more polemic the speech, the more deserving it is of First Amendment one advancing popular, celebrated or sanctioned opinions needs protection. Like CAIR, these and other Islamophiliac sites oppose the free speech rights of those with whom they disagree and hate...yes, haters, but haters whose hatred is useful in the current sub rosa war against America and Western Civilization.

The number of people who will miss Bare Naked Islam is small; truth to tell, the blog was, despite its popularity among those amused by its sometimes quirky news reports (Saudi Arabia investigates how Israeli pencils got into Kingdom, British village uses pig's blood to discourage Muslim yobs,  Star of David found on Iranian airport, and Muslim airline passenger discovered with pants down), it really is small potatoes, much more easily taken down than larger foes like Atlas Shrugs, World Net Daily or Weasel Zippers, which, themselves, are nothing like such Internet media titans as Fox News or CNN. By attacking small fry like Bare Naked Islam, CAIR is adopting the time-honored tactics of the predator, taking down the small, weak and sick members of a herd. Not only are they easy prey, unable to defend themselves, but no one weeps at their demise. Even those who vented over the blogs of BNI will just go elsewhere...and of course, jackal-like CAIR will follow, knowing that even if a blog cannot be attacked itself, complaints may filed with the Department of Justice and intimidation brought to bear because of the commentators.

For the moment, organizations like CAIR must satisfied with extinguishing the Free Speech rights of small indefensible sites like Bare Naked Islam. After all, go after any larger prey and out come the lawyers; CAIR would rather move about stealthily, working in the background through pressure, intimidation or the agency of others...they reserve actual lawyer vs lawyer warfare to conflicts involving their own hide, such as the book Muslim Mafia which they are trying to suppress.

That reticence to attack free speech of media sites that can fight back may be about to change. On 12 December 2011 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a three-day closed-door conference with Islamic groups on how to best implement Resolution 16/18 of the U.N. Human Rights Council, the purpose of which is to combat "religious intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization." In effect, it would criminalize intolerance as well as criticism (or defamation) of religion. Although there are nations dedicated to exterminating Christianity (e.g., Saudi Arabia prohibits churches), the fact that this resolution was initiated by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) betrays the true intent of the resolution -- criticize Islam or defame the Prophet and you are in for a world of hurt. And soon that hurt will be backed by the full force and might of the United States of America.

The government has weighed in on the side limiting free speech by its support of Res 16/18, but don't expect any real action from the Justice Department until after the November 2012 event, so at least until then CAIR the Islamic Killer Whale will have to be satisfied with minnows and sardines. After the President is assured of at least four more years, implementation of the UN resolution will be able to proceed apace. It will change the First Amendment in America in ways we cannot imagine, a giant step toward changing society to shariah compliance, the hope and change favored by CAIR Director Ibrahim Hooper. Those who opine "it can't happen here" should consider the demise of Bare Naked Islam, the calls for war on Islam's critics by people who should know better, the role the Justice Department has taken on as an advocate for Islam, the overt and covert hostility of the President toward Israel, the government-sponsored and -condoned war on Christianity, the actions of activist jurists to change the Constitution and subvert elections, and the actions of President Barack Obama to diminish American exceptionalism in favor of a global community. Sinclair Lewis told us in a novel (1935) that "it can happen here," as did Norvell Page in a more popular medium in the Depression, just as Gregory La Cava showed us in Gabriel Over the White House (1933) that it was possible for an American president to aspire for a dictatorship.

There are always tough times ahead, always dark times ahead, always barbarians gathering at the gate, because that is the nature of the world. America is the City on the Hill, the beacon of freedom for the world,  and there will always be those seeking to extinguish that light...enemies foreign and domestic. But, let your heart not be troubled, for just as freedom and liberty always has its foes, fierce, powerful and motivated,  America will always have its heroes...

What side will you be on?

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Vote Democrat! Vote Often! If You're Dead, So Much the Better!

As we march toward the election of 2012 (maybe), Attorney General Erik Holder took a moment from his struggle for sharia law in the United States, from his New Black Panther Party pro bono work, and from his  bashing of Judeo-Christian moral values to stand up for another beleaguered minority -- the voting dead.

As 2012 dawns, many states are enacting laws which will require voters to present photo identification cards or other forms of ID when voting. Mr Holder summarily blocked the law which the State of South Carolina enacted, claiming it discriminated against blacks because blacks were five times more likely not to have an ID card than whites. The claim might be worth considering if anyone actually believed blacks were five times less likely than whites to drink, smoke, write a check, use a credit card, apply for unemployment, apply for food stamps, apply for a job, open a bank account, apply for a social security number or get a library card. No, it's obvious that all the laws requiring voter identification are targeting the one group that has always been the mainstay of the Democratic Political Machine -- dead voters.

"Many surprises came out  the 2008 elections, including record turn out, registration and participation."
-- Hilary Shelton, NAACP
Although some of those "surprises" came out at the time of the election, such as all the fictitious people registered to vote in Nevada and Illinois, not to mention the 327 Democrats using a small house in Texas as a domicile, one of the best "surprises" did not emerge until 2010 and 2011: the many counties in Indiana where names were forged in order to get Barack Obama's name on the ballot. The Democrat operatives were outed when the living owners of those forged signatures denounced the fakery. Needless to say, that would not have happened if those ham-handed operatives have stayed with the dead...the reliable dead...the dead who not only never rat anyone out, but who can always be counted on to vote Democrat.

Since about half the States already have laws requiring identification, it is incumbent upon Attorney General Holder to do all he can to protect the voting rights of the Democratic dead. If that means axing South Carolina's new law (never mind that it is identical to another State's law that has been approved by the Supreme Court) then so be it. And if the imperious decree of the Right Honorable Attorney General does not carry the day, he can always play the Race Card...for some unknowable reason, the Dead Card just doesn't carry the weight it should.

But, you know, times are changing, and people just aren't what they used to be. The Democrats are finding they must look beyond the usual supporters. Workers with lots of material objects are not as susceptible as they used to be to bribes, nor to the appeal of the Socialist agenda; and with fewer people belonging to Unions, the dictates of groups like SEIU ("power comes from the barrel of a gun") fall upon increasingly deaf ears. The Democrats have managed to dig up votes, like pigs rooting for truffles, by dividing people into sliver-groups such as GBLTs, Muslims, Latinos, AARP-ers, eco-freaks, Jew bashers, Jew lovers, Black people who want to be farmers, reefer enthusiasts, nudists, 99% crap artists, Anthony Weiner groupies, Prairie Fire alumni, activist baristas, and migrant anarchists. Slim pickings, maybe, but with more and more people defecting to the ranks of the "independent voter" Democrats must work with what they have; even President Obama's effort to shrink the middle by declaring class warfare and forcing people to pick sides has not been entirely successful. Hence the growing importance of the Faithful Democratic Dead, and the reason for Mr Holder's fevered defense of the voting dead.

Still, if the day should come when even the dead rise against the political machinations of the Left, the Democrats have an ace up the sleeve, a group they have been nurturing for a long time, probably since 1947...the illegal alien vote:

cartoon by Baloo (rmay)

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Christmas 2011

Merry Christmas to all who fight for a better world...

Peace on Earth...

Goodwill to all..

There should be peace on Earth, 
but it always seems submerged beneath a tide of hatred and division.
Rather than following our better angels, 
we give in to our baser natures 
and listen to the Father of Lies;
Even in Bethlehem, where the Prince of Peace was sent to us,
the tide of blood overwhelms all...

Thank you, all, who have supported Right Here on the Left Coast through this, the 100th post...

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Boycott Islamic Terror!

Boycotts have been used to promote ideas by punishing merchants for a couple of hundred years. Generally speaking, they garner lots of notice, especially in this age of instantaneous worldwide communication, but, as vehicles of expression, they are usually not very effective. And if we were to actually observe all the boycotts called for by all the knuckleheads of society, we would be thin from not eating anything, be nudists, live in holes in the ground and have to walk everywhere, not that we would have anywhere to go, since none of us would have jobs.

As you can see from this small sampling, there are wing-nuts out there (right & left) who want you to support their views, and if you do not, then you, too, are the enemy, in danger of being tarred along with their targets...subject to smears, threats, discrimination, intimidation, attacks and violence. 

Usually, the boycott instigators are relatively harmless because they really do not have the clout they think they have. Sure, the Southern Californians Against Badger Scalping can issue a press release calling for a boycott of Fantastic Sam's Haircuts because of the rumored use of badgers in the testing of tonsorial supplies, can even organize picketing of the businesses, but who really cares? You just ignore the SCABS and go about your business, same as with every other nut-job organization or tinfoil-hatted loon who wants to tell you what to do with your money. However, there are times when the nut-jobs and loons are dangerous to a free society.

Lieu (w/o tinfoil hat)

The loon this time is California state Senator Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) who wants to use his office, and your tax dollars, to organize a boycott against home improvement chain Lowes, and has threatened to use his legislative powers to force them to support a television show he likes. The draconian senator is joined in his intimidation by CAIR, the secretive and furtive anti-civil rights organization linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. A television show, you ask? Yes, as ridiculous as it sounds, Senator Lieu and CAIR are incensed that Lowes has decided not to purchase air-time in support of a "reality" show carried by The Learning Channel (TLC); the show is entitled All-American Muslim, which is currently the subject of litigation between TLC, its creators and the company from which the idea was stolen. All-American Muslim depicts the trials and tribulations of five Muslim families living in Dearborn, Mich., site of the nation's largest Muslim enclave. Even if you have not seen the show, you have probably seen its promotional graphic which features a Muslim hiding behind the American flag...

No, not that Muslim...this Muslim...

The demographic for this show, which has earned the ire of a few Muslim groups because some of the participants are not traditional enough (perhaps the tattooed beer-swilling Shadia, though she did force her converted fiance to abandon his pet dog), trends toward females in the key demographic, which may not translate to sales for a home improvement store. Also, the show served as a lightning-rod for criticism, according to Lowes, resulting in a call for a boycott by a Christian group, so Lowes decided to spend its advertising budget elsewhere...causing Senator Loony Lieu to call for a boycott and even mention criminal prosecution; CAIR, on the other hand, is considering backing away from a boycott...if Lowes will give them money, a common ploy for the antisemitic group. Sometimes you're just screwed, no matter what you do, but the silver lining for Lowes is that many supporters have organized a buycott, eschewing the other home improvement store (which already has a boycott against it) to spend extra $$$ at Lowes...

While some people have joined in support of Senator Lieu's attack on free speech, I have enough faith in the citizenry (yes, even here in Kalifornia) that they will realize his actions violate the constitutions of both California and the United States, and that his fellow legislators will roll their eyes at his foolishness. On the other hand, he has already used taxpayer dollars in pursuit of the same Islamofascist agenda as CAIR; if you have a problem with that, you might want to let him know...

I contacted Senator Lieu's office some days ago so he could present his own concerns about the owners of Lowes exercising their First Amendment rights, but he declined to do so by silence. Fortunately, a clerical-type was quite helpful, but even he/she (I'm not telling) could not answer the question of whether Senator Lieu is considering boycotts or legal action against those companies which failed to buy advertising space in the first place...there must be about a million or so.

Generally, I am not in favor of boycotts of any sort, though I do reserve the right to make personal choices, both in companies to avoid and companies to support, as well as certain nations of which I approve or disapprove. In the mad rush to force their opinions on others, social fascists of all stripes (NGOs, politicians, jihadists, etc) overlook the fact that the real victims of boycotts are employees...they experience the ire and violence of the boycotters first hand, not the executives, and if a boycott is even moderately successful, it is their employment on the line, not that of the boys in the boardroom.

But I would support a boycott on jihad, jihadists and those who support Islamic terror; including groups, such as CAIR, engaged in a stealth jihad by infiltration, sedition, smear campaigns, intimidation, threats, implied violence and lawfare. To participate:

  • withhold donations from terrorist-linked groups such as CAIR and crypto-jihadists like Lieu
  • support the Constitution of the United States over sharia
  • support peace and freedom over the violence that has been pursued by Islamcists.
Will this boycott of philosophical intent rather than economic blackmail be embraced? No, of course not, since its only outcome could be to protect America, not advance a power-grabbing agenda. Goodnight, America the Constitutional the city on the hill, the lights go out, one by one. Darkness descends.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Who knew yarmulkes could be made from tinfoil?

Tim Tebow
Tim Tebow is a talented footfall player, a winner of the Heisman Trophy and currently the quarterback of the Denver Broncos. Unlike many people in his profession, he's a clean-cut fellow with no drug abuse problems, no sex scandals, and no economic excesses brought on by the influx of wealth, the downfall of many a young athlete possessing more money than sense; he also does not torture and kill dogs, engage in bar brawls, pack a gun so he can shoot himself in the leg, or slap women around so he can feel like a man; he's also a humble guy who values the contributions of others more than his own, and knows that whatever talent he has on the gridiron is allowed him by God -- and there lies the source of intense hatred against the young man. And the hatred often comes from some unexpected quarters, including, just recently, a rabbi who opined that Tebow's faith would usher in a reign of terror and intolerance,  a rampage of murder and mayhem at the hands of Christians because of a game.

Rabbi Joshua Hammerman
The man responsible for this loony pronouncement is Rabbi Joshua Hammerman, spiritual leader for Temple Beth El in Stamford, Conn., columnist for Jewish Week and writer of a blog called On One Foot. The lengthy article, which began "I have a problem with Tim Tebow," appeared in both venues but have since been removed -- in Jewish Week it has been replaced by commentary from the editors and Rabbi Hammerman; on the blog site, it has been entirely banished to the electronic dungeons of the internet, far from hackers and surfers.

The editors apologized for the hate-filled anti-Christian polemic by pointing out that it "...violated our own standards for civility..." but such apologies are best taken with a bag of salt. Having edited more than a few publications over the years, I know that nothing is published by accident, that every submission (especially those from independent columnists) is reviewed by an editor and measured against editorial standards. If the article violated Jewish Week's standards after attention was called to it, it violated those standards before it was published. If an editor read the submission and published it, there can no other conclusion (other than incompetence) than that the editor approved and supported this attack on Christianity, and no amount of apology changes that.

Rabbi Hammerman's mea culpa is even more disingenuous: "I have spent my entire career engaged in dialogue with people of all faiths while speaking against intolerance and extremism...I realize the way in which I attempted to make my point was clumsy and inappropriate." An experienced journalist and a winner of the Rockower Award for Excellence in Jewish Journalism would have us believe that he was unable to cogently communicate what he felt? I think, called to task for writing commentary that would have made the overlords of CAIR smile, he did what all biased writers do when reality bursts through the little bubble in which they dwell -- backtrack, do the old soft shoe, mutter about misunderstandings and seek justification in their own past. It's not like we haven't seen it all before.

If Rabbi Hammerman feels this way about Christians or Tim Tebow, then he should stand by his words. It is not the first time he has singled out young Tim Tebow for a bit of scorn. In his blog, he wrote that he had no problem with the phrase "Merry Christmas" because Christ was not a name, but that if the day were called "...Tim Tebow Day there might be cause for concern." Really, Rabbi? Do you actually see a football player as a religious icon? Just because he thanks God for his talent or drops to one knee to pray silently? Would it be more acceptable if he did some lascivious pseudo-sexual hip-hop foolishness like other footballers?

Or does it have anything to do with Tim Tebow at all? Is it nothing more than another disguised attack on Christianity? It seems Rabbi Hammerman feels it is okay to attack Christians and Christianity, but probably not because he is Jewish or is sympathetic to non-Christian religions; he attacks because he is a liberal. You see, it's okay in the liberal handbook to attack Christianity. The reasons? Liberals hate and fear Christians...not all of them, of course, for some liberals are very religious, but certainly those who put their politics ahead of faith. Those who think true Christians (and Tim Tebow is one) will act like rampaging Muslims or humanists should consider the Parable of the Sower. 

Rabbi Hammerman's attack on Christians falls into the same category as the dire warnings of mosque attacks issued by CAIR when Michigan Christians held a prayer meeting, and the perennial fear-mongering by atheists every Christmas. They would have people believe that Christians will put non-believers to the sword (no, you have to go to the Koran or The King's Torah for that philosophy), or place non-Christians in concentration camps (I'm sure everyone notice the round-up of Muslims after 9/11). The murders, mosque burnings, indoctrination camps and other excesses blamed on Christians have not come to pass, but that does not stop Rabbi Hammerman and other liberals from engaging in strident Chicken Little journalism.

One final word about Rabbi Hammerman's misfiring missive. He claims that if you google tebowing you get 84,000,000 hits. It's just more of his hyperbole of course, since googling that flash-slang word for kneeling returns only 2,310,000 hits. I think I can guarantee, however, that long after tebowing joins bee's knees and 23 skidoo in the junkyard of forgotten slang kneeling (34,100,000 hits) and praying (138,000,000 hits) will still be relevant to people of faith. On the other hand, if you google Rabbi Hammerman crazy you will get 48,200 hits...and it seems to be growing.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

The Enemy Within

The travesty of Major Nidal Hasan, nominally an officer and gentlemen in the United States Army but in reality a Soldier of Allah, murdering people in the name of Islam is only the most public example of an insidious enemy within America's military, but it is hardly a solitary incident.
  • Captain James Yee -- accused of sedition and spying while a chaplain at Guantanamo, where he counselled terrorists, but charges were dropped when release of evidence for trial would have damaged national security.
  • Corporal Wassif Ali Hassoun -- deserted his post in Iraq to join fellow Islamists.
  • Sr Airman Ahmad Al Halabi -- stole classified documents during his assignment to Guantanamo.
  • Spec. Ryan Anderson -- tried (unsuccessfully) to leak classified information to Al Qaeda.
  • Sailor Hassan Abu-Jihaad -- leaked Gulf ship movements to Al Qaeda (come on, even in our PC times, someone should have noticed the surname he chose).
  • Hasan Akbar -- killed two brothers-in-arms from the 101st Airborne in Kuwait as part of his jihad against America.

These incidents, as well as plots and attacks against the military by Muslims outside the military, came to light again with last week's joint congressional hearing on "homegrown" terrorism and its effects. Like the other hearings held by Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.), these were fraught with controversy, especially from  self-styled civil libertarians who see it as their duty to deflect any criticism from or observations about Muslims. One of the quavering voices belonged to Mississippi Democrat Bennie Thompson:
"Our military is open to all faiths. A congressional hearing that focuses on religion in the military is likely to harm unit cohesion and undermine morale."
What social ostriches like Rep Thompson fail to realize is that the hearing has nothing to do with Islam, or any particular religion. It has everything to do with terrorism and those who commit acts of terror. The liberal mindset not only refuses to fix responsibility for terrorism on terrorists such as Akbar, or jihadist Carlos Bledsoe who murdered Pvt. William Long in Little Rock, Ark., but refuses to even consider acts of terrorism as such -- the jihadist rampage of Major Hasan, during which he screamed "Allah Akbar!", has been classed officially as an example of "workplace violence."

By the way, Rep Thomson, serving with a Muslim who is told he must kill you to be a "good" Muslim is even worse for morale than asking about honor and loyalty. Senator Joseph Lieberman definitely hit the nail on the head when he said:
"...the enemy is not a vague catchall of violent extremism, but a specific violent Islamist extremism."
Recently, there have been calls to bar Muslims from service in the military, even to expel the approximately 4,000 already serving. As might be expected, this has rankled many who do not care about our men and women in uniform. When a Tennessee state senator voiced this prohibition, he was verbally attacked and his reputation smeared by CAIR, the prominent anti-civil liberties organization that was profiled in the book Muslim Mafia. And yet, the desire to keep Muslims out of the military is echoed by several Muslim sources:
"Helping the kaafirs against the Muslims is a form of major kufr which puts one beyond the pale of Islam."
--Abu Khair
"...Muslims must not be involved in fighting, harming or even bothering Muslims."
--Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America
The basic tenants of life in the military are service, sacrifice, honor, discipline and loyalty. It means putting your nation and the welfare of your fellow citizens ahead of your personal feelings. It means helping people, even if they are not Muslims. And it means accepting the Constitution of the United States of America as the supreme law of the land, supporting and defending it from all enemies, foreign and domestic...not an easy task to accept when Muslims are required to support sharia; even the director of CAIR, which styles itself as a moderate voice, has publicly opted for an America governed by sharia, not the Constitution.

The instances of Muslims protecting the Constitution from attack by fellow Muslims is virtually non-existent, or even speaking in favor of it, for matter. However, that does not stop Muslims from wrapping themselves with it as they proclaim the benefits of free speech. The only favorable attention received by the Constitution from Muslims is when they demand that others shut up, that others do not criticize them, that others do not offend them, that others respect them...or else.

So, should Muslims serve in the American military? That depends entirely upon the Muslims themselves. As the otherwise wrong-headed Representative Thompson rightly pointed out -- "Our military is open to all faiths." If Muslims can serve without reservation and perform all duties of a soldier, then the military is as open as to them as anyone else, religious or not; if Muslims cannot serve in good conscience, then Muslims are going to have to sit it out and join the Jehovah Witnesses, the Amish, Seventh Day Adventists and those who follow the Wiccan rede. So, the real questions, the ones no one really wants to ask, are: Who are you, what do you want, and whom do you serve? Try to be honest...for once.

Friday, December 9, 2011

Ire and Loathing at Iowa State University

ISU: Bastion of hatred and liberal fascism?

Iowa has changed for the worse (along with the rest of the country, I suppose) since Professor Harold Hill got off the train in River City and changed everyone's life by infusing the community with a heady dose of mischievous wholesomeness. And professors aren't quite what they used to be either: the charming roguishness of Professor Hill is now replaced by the boorish vulgarity of U. of Iowa Professor Ellen Lewin, who sent a campus-wide email that read "F*** YOU REPUBLICANS!"  That was back in April 2011.

Thomas Walker should be deported to Ohio, where weird is the norm.
And now (December 2011) we have another outbreak of virulent liberal fascism from Iowa. Is it the water? Is there some miasma in the air which has made its way to Iowa State University at Ames? Here's the skinny -- some good-hearted ISU students mounted an effort to send our boys in Afghanistan some care packages, the sort of thing charitable people do at Christmastime to show our soldiers far from home that they are not forgotten. Enter one Thomas Walker, a lowly lecturer and loathsome liberal toad:
Donating toiletries, boxed and canned foods, socks and beanies to U.S. soldiers who can already deodorize themselves, who eat better than the poorest Americans and who are gallantly garbed, is an eleemosynary travesty.
Soldiers are to Republicans as fetuses are to them: prized. But once out of the womb-like army, Republican solicitude for hapless veterans goes where extracted zygotes go.
What are they doing for us? Nothing. But against us they're doing a lot: creating anti-American terrorists in the countries they occupy.
While everyone has the God-given right to speak as he wishes and to be as bone-headed as he wants, he should not be surprised when people exercise their rights of free speech and point out what an anti-American loon he is. Normally, I would give Mr Walker a pass (other than citing his vapid imbecility), but this buffoon needs to be sacked, and if the ISU Board of Regents had an active social conscience and a sense of responsibility toward students, Walker would be given his walking papers, a bright pink slip shoved into his locker and a campus police officer to help him clean out his cubby. And here's why:
"An important part of the Intensive English and Orientation Program (IEOP) is for students to learn about the people and customs of the United States."
That passage is taken directly from the mission statement of the university's IEOP. So, students are going to learn about Americans and American ways from someone who hates soldiers and half the country's population? Are they also going to learn English from Prairie Fire, Mao's Little Red Book and Das kapital? If not given the boot, then Mr Walker should be doing something more suited to his talents and proclivities,  such as lecturing in Social Sciences about the virtues of entitlements and how the OWS riots are contributing to economic prosperity, or taking care of dirty towels in the gym. When presenting the nature of America to students hoping for the truth, ISU needs a lecturer who can be honest, not just about America's flaws, but its virtues as well -- students have a right to that level of honesty.

Thomas Walker, as portrayed by the ISU English Department

One last thing before disposing of the odious little lecturer: Wise up, Walker. Soldiers don't create terrorists bent on jihad against the United States, Islam does; and as far as anti-American...don't your students get enough of that from you?

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Good intentions still make the best roads...

"A distinction should be made between antisemitism, which should be condemned, and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians...An Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim antisemitism."
--Howard Gutman, US Ambassador to Belgium

When Ambassador Howard Gutman spoke the above words at a conference on antisemitism organized by the European Jewish Union in November 2011, the audience was reportedly "stunned." The speaker which followed the ambassador gave him quite a drubbing; opining that any sort of treaty by Israel will turn the hearts and minds of Muslims goes against the "party line" and makes it seem as if he were placing the blame for the antisemitism in Europe (and maybe America, where Jew-hatred is rampant) on Israel. Now there are calls for the termination of the popular ambassador, an Obama appointee who was confirmed as the representative to Belgium in July 2009, including strong condemnations by the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, who are always trying to find some way to shout, "Look at me!" The White House has made no move toward replacing Ambassador Gutman, who remains a very popular figure in the Kingdom of Belgium, about whom the newspaper Le Soir wrote, he is "...the ambassador who makes us love America again."

Ambassador Gutman is himself Jewish, the son of a Polish immigrant and Holocaust survivor, but as an American Jew he trended toward a liberal frame of mind. A graduate of Columbia (1977) and Harvard Law (1980), he clerked for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, represented the likes of Weather Underground member Susan Rosenberg, worked as a Democratic supporter and fundraiser, and served on the legal team that sought to subvert the election between Al Gore and George Bush. To his liberal background add a healthy dose of the nonjudgmental social justice that infuses modern America -- we don't really want to judge you and would rather think the best of you. It's a perverse and insular viewpoint that stems from not living in an environment where people are always trying to either kick you into the gutter or kill you. Despite what liberals and hate groups like CAIR (a Islamic anti-civil rights organization) claim, life in America is mostly free of overt and organized ethnic prejudice, except, of course, amongst the ethnic communities themselves. Liberal optimism wants to believe Israel can do something to settle the Palestinian problem, but all Israel can really do is agree to a peace treaty; unfortunately, even were Israel to agree to some kind of settlement, even if agreeing to the indefensible borders President Obama proposed when he threw Israel under the tram, it would do absolutely nothing to diminish the blood-lust hatred of the Palestinian thugs or of European Islamofascists in general. Ambassador Gutman is at worst chuckle-headed, at best naively optimistic.

Even in a place like Belgium, long home to several ethnic groups living in harmony under a constitutional monarchy, there is a strong taint of "traditional" antisemitism, the legacy of pagan kings aggressively converting to Christianity, who wrongly believed the Jews crucified Christ. The prejudice among Belgians is nothing what it was like prior to the Industrial Revolution, and those who lived through the trauma of WW2 saw first hand what happens when the carcinoma of antisemitism becomes  the polar star of a nation; there has been a slight increase among European punk radicals and revolutionaries, but nothing compared to the spike in hatred since the modern Islamic infestation of Europe began. The traditional openness of Europe has made it easy for Muslims to establish footholds in many countries, which Islamofascists have built upon by remaining separate and using lawfare to destroy traditional values from within. This influx, added to a rising birthrate among Muslims and a declining birthrate among native Europeans, has made Islam a very strong and oppressive force in society, causing the hatred of Jews and the crimes against them to  skyrocket. As Europe moves toward  "Eurabia,"  the steady drizzle of hatred will become a rain of terror.

Despite the official dogma from the White House, or what Ambassador Gutman's liberal friends believe, the hatred of Jews by Muslims has nothing to do with the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The conflict is nothing more than a pretense, an excuse for murder; blood is the milk with which they suckle their children, and charred flesh is their bread. If Israel were to lay aside their weapons in a bid for peace, the only result would be a surge from Gaza and Judea, Palestinians lusting to kill, and an uprising of the murderous elements abiding within Israel.

Lost in the mindless ire against Ambassador Gutman's knucklehead statement is a truth. There is a difference between "traditional" antisemitism and the hatred which arises from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even people who would vigorously defend their fairness, for example the GBLT (pronounced "giblet") people in the photo to the right, lose their rationality when Israel is mentioned. For the sake of the "innocent" Palestinians will liberal students and Manhattan socialites take to the streets and engage in vicious race-baiting and hate-speech that they would deplore and condemn in anyone else. These are the same sort of people who participated in the attempt to run the naval blockade Israel maintains against Gaza, never mind that the reason for the blockade is to keep Iran and other countries from bringing in tons of weapons -- the amount of weaponry that can brought in via freighter dwarfs all the missiles, ammunition and AK47s carried clandestinely through the Egyptian tunnels. Even liberals who would vehemently deny their antisemitism froth at the mouth when the imagined plight of the Palestinians comes into play.

And since liberals are at the forefront of Israel hatred, it should not come as a huge surprise that many of the people holding the signs and saying the most vile things are often Jews themselves.

Liberals frequently accuse conservatives of racism, as they did when the T.E.A. Party movement was on the rise. They claimed the disparate groups protesting the spiraling socialization of America were tied to the Nazi Party, that they targeted Blacks, Hispanics and Jews; none of it was true, despite the lies issued by sitting members of Congress. On the other hand, liberals justify antisemitism when they commit it themselves, and they absolutely give it a pass when it is egregiously committed by flake-heads involved in movements which have liberal support, such as President Obama's violent Occupy Wall Street faction.

So, is Ambassador Gutman a chucklehead for linking Muslim hatred of Jews to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians? Absolutely. And is he stupid for thinking Muslims will grow a compassionate heart if a peace treaty is ever signed? Maybe not stupid, but at least deluded or naively hopeful. And should he be relieved of his post? No, not for the statement made; he appears to be a good representative of America to the Belgians, and despite a proclivity to parrot mindless liberal dogma he seems otherwise competent. In the future, however, perhaps the ambassador should stick to handing out music awards on Belgian television or cavorting with Smurfs, and leave the analysis of the ever-changing situation in the Mideast to those who have a better pedigree than just being Jewish.