Europe "Stands Up" For Its Principles

Not surprisingly, the Europeans (and the United States, too) have reacted timorously to the release of the Geert Wilders film "Fitna", a film that attempts to show that the Koran is the true source of Muslim violence in defense of their "faith". While (very reluctantly) defending the right of Wilders to make and exhibit his film on free speech principles, all western countries and information outlets did all they could to prevent the film from seeing the light of day. The one Internet outlet that agreed to distribute the film, the British web site LiveLeak.com, has now withdrawn the film from the web, citing threats to its staff "of a very serious nature." This sad episode, in fact, clearly illustrates the film's contention about the violent nature of Islam and the Koran's "inspiration" that violence is the way to defend the faith from attack and from any insults, real or perceived.

The EU fell all over itself to disown the message of the film and to plead with Muslims all over the world to PLEASE not get violent. Naturally, they put forth all the usual clichés about the "peaceful" nature of Islam - while the plea itself spoke to the lie of these assurances.

The Euros are so pathetic in their pleading, that they actually purposefully mis-state the contention of the film, in order to deny something that the film does NOT say: "I do not agree with the film because you cannot say 1.3 billion Muslims are potential terrorists," Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller told reporters. Wilders never makes this contention. His point is that the Koran very explicitly directs acts of hatred against non-believers (the Jews are in for very special treatment here!) and directs Muslim to commit violence in defense of Islam and to propagate it. Since the film DIRECTLY quotes the Koran and then provides (sometimes generic) illustrations of the principle involved, there really can't be any question that the points are made. The film never says "1.3 billion Muslims are potential terrorists", though it SHOULD have!

These pathetic acts of cowardice and supplication by the "enlightened" western leaders are amplified by their dead silence when Christianity or Judaism are attacked by academics, web nuts or (most disturbing) by Muslims everywhere. Where are these great "leaders" when Muslims in EUROPE and the Middle Easts say the most vile things against us? Hiding for cover under the poxed blankets of "tolerance and understanding", usually. No grand speeches to defend the "victims" in those instances

Geert Wilders - Hero

In the pusillanimous collection of European political leaders, it is refreshing and encouraging to find at least one man of courage who dares to speak the truth about Islam, its "prophet" and its "holy book" the Koran. Mr. Wilders is causing quite a sensation with his planned documentary examining the Koran and unequivocally identifying it as the source of evil and barbarity that it is.

Europeans are in a tizzy about anticipated Muslim reaction - anticipated to be violent, savage and destructive of Europeans' property, lives and peace of mind. If only Mr. Wilders would close his eyes and play nice like all the other timorous European leaders, why the filthy beast of Islam in Europe may continue to be silently appeased for a little while longer, until a final surrender to Islam in the face of demographic inevitability. But No! Mr. Wilders insists on telling the truth and facing the looming catastrophe head on before it consumes them all.

It is truly sad to see once mighty Europe cower before these savages, caught up in the logic (or ILLOGIC) of their "tolerance" rhetoric and (more to the point) afraid to stand up for their values and their way of life lest they be attacked by the domestic beast that they have created for themselves. Even that "defender" of Christianity, the papacy. is falling all over itself to assure the savages, within Europe and in the Muslim "fatherlands", that they mean no harm and no disrespect to the "religion of peace". The islamo-fascists must have a great laugh every time they accuse the Europeans - and the pope in particular - of waging a crusade against Islam. How delightful it must be to Muslims everywhere to hear the apologies and contrition they can induce by simply accusing the West of being intolerant.

Mr. Wilders is one of the rare European politicians that dare to speak up and, for his courage, he is vilified and ridiculed (he is a bit of an eccentric) at home. He is in physical danger from the adherents of the "religion of peace" and requires police protection, even in his HOME country, in civilized Europe. When will we in the West finally realize how dangerous, backward and ill -suited for our countries Islam is. The courageous few, like Mr. Wilders, need to be protected and supported no matter how eccentric and politically incorrect they might be.

Obama Crying “Uncle”

Excuses and obfuscation are the basic tools of ideologues who want to short circuit an argument. Barack Obama's speech on Race was entirely a non sequitur. Does he accept Wright's contentions on 9/11; the spread of AIDS; Israel as a war criminal (and America's support of same); etc.? If not, then how can he take spiritual advice from someone who holds such erroneous beliefs and, apparently, not challenge him until there is a public outcry? Has he sat down with his "uncle" and tried to discuss these issues? Just because Wright (and, apparently, 30% of Blacks) holds these beliefs "sincerely", does not excuse giving them a pass, without discussion and argumentation. The most blatant non sequitur of all (obfuscation, really) was for Obama to drag his grandmother into the speech for expressing private views on Blacks or other groups, and equivalence her attitudes with the actions of a public figure whose sermons are deemed to be significant enough to be (unashamedly) recorded. This is a blatant attempt on Obama's part to play the classic Liberal game of moral equivalency. There is no comparison!

All this obfuscation not withstanding, facts are still facts! Either the things Wright says are correct or they are not! Either the US spread AIDS among Blacks or it didn't; either Israel commits war crimes with American connivance or it doesn't. If Obama wants to lead, then he has to confront. If he wants to analyze and sooth then he should be a preacher or a psychiatrist, not president of the United States of America! He should have taken his "uncle" to task when he heard him speak this nonsense (Wright is supposed to be a leader in the Black community?) and set him straight or emphatically denounce him. And what is more, he needs to have done it on his own, not wait till after the hue and cry of the last few days!

What is the great "unifier and leader", Obama, doing to change these erroneous perceptions in the Black community as he goes about trying to change the hard hearts of Whites?

When are eternally guilt-ridden Liberal White commentators going to start holding Mr. Obama to the same standards as White politicians? When Liberals will accept (for example) that a White politician can go to Bob Jones University, “sincerely” talk about policy (social, foreign or domestic), without being made to answer for the school’s policy on inter-racial dating, they will be free to give a pass to any Black preacher, politician or whatever who spouts wrong-headed nonsense without expecting to be tainted on more "spiritual" matters. Geraldine Farraro had it right, but she was on the wrong side of the politically-correct divide

Poetry is fine, in its place, Governing requires leadership! Governing requires hard decisions - even personal ones. Would he still support his "uncle" if he caught him committing an "indecent" or a criminal act? Where does “family” (and racial) loyalty end for a "leader"? After-all even Hillary wasn't prepared to "stand by her man" indefinitely (especially if he were no longer politically useful to her).

Why Eliot Got Dumped

By all rights, Eliot Spitzer should have gotten a free pass. He is a Liberal Democrat and no one expects a high standard of personal morality (such an archaic word!) from Liberals; the standard is more “do your own thing”. The Liberals set the bar very low after Clinton; the operative phrase is: "as long as it doesn't affect his job performance"
One possible reason for their abandoning him is that he may have evoked their outrage by paying such an exorbitant price for sex, which goes against Liberals' egalitarian instincts. Clinton, on the other hand, got it as a benefit of his office, from the hired help, which is much more in line with Liberal doctrine - just another government entitlement.

Another reason, of course, is that there was an “African American” (and blind, at that!) waiting to take over and make more “history”. What a compelling story! It was one that was sure to set Liberal hearts aflutter.

Spitzer was, naturally, quickly read out of the Liberal fraternity. Instead, the media emphasized his hard personality, arrogance and moralizing tone. All these were plusses when he was the Liberal demagogue, going after corporate malfeasance. Even his prosecution of prostitution (normally a dicey call for a Liberal believer in “do your own thing”) was applauded by the feminist wing of the Liberal establishment; it was characterized more as going after “prostitution rings” (big business!) than self-actuating (even feminist!) “sex workers”. Forgotten were all his social Liberal pronouncement and endeavors: driver licenses for Illegals; advocacy of Gay rights and Gay marriage; etc… etc… Now he was just a control freak and a rich spoilt brat, to boot.

It is easier (for a White male, at least) to lose the coveted Liberal label and establishment embrace than for a sinner to be expelled from a religious community.

Offensive Statements May Sometimes Also Be True

Geraldine Ferraro said "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position............." Ferraro also said Obama has it easy because of a "very sexist media." She happened to be right on the first part and not quite right on the second part.

As always, the thought police (in this case, David Axelrod - a hardly disinterested member of Obama’s entourage) immediately pounced on this politically incorrect statement to stifle debate by raising the specter of “racism” and scaring the pants off anyone who might have wanted to support Ferraro, even a little bit. Of course Ferraro was forced to leave her position with the Clinton campaign because of her comments and poor Hillary fell all over herself backtracking and apologizing. Completing the “good cop, bad cop” charade, Obama said he didn’t think that Ferraro was racist (re-admitting her into the human race – or polite Liberal society, at least), and thus earning for himself more fawning accolades from the mainstream media for his magnanimity. However, the smear had already done its work and poor White, female, Ferraro, who had spent her entire career genuflecting before the gods of “racial harmony”, “inclusiveness”, blah .. blah.. will forever be consigned to racist hell, alongside Earl Butz and legions of others. She, along with all other pandering White Liberal politicians, may now realize, at last, that they have dug their own political graves – they can never be “of color” and will lose out to “authentic”, more exotic, candidates for office every time.

In contrast, Obama’s “pastor”, the not-so-Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has been spewing anti-American, anti-White, anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rhetoric for years (he is a backer of that great humanitarian, Louis Farrakhan) with no consequence for his spiritual acolyte, Barack Hussein Obama. Only now has a mainstream media outlet (ABC News) bestirred itself (no doubt in a belated attempt to provide “balance”) to expose some of his remarks (on 9/11, no less). Of course, Obama was quick to put out some eloquent pabulum “denouncing” the “Rev”, but only specifically about his 9/11 remarks. Significantly, Obama had no denunciation of Wright’s virulent anti-Israel libels: are you listening, Liberal Jews? Or are your blinders still firmly in place? Obama also specifically did not disassociate himself from the church, from which Wright is “retiring”. From AP: “Obama told MSNBC that he would not repudiate Wright as a man, describing him as "like an uncle…." Now if a White politician had taken such an equivocal position towards a racist, say, he would have been hounded until he paraded himself in sackcloth and ashes and been forever branded. His association would be cited every time the politician was mentioned in any news account. (The NY Times is particularly adept at such assassination by association). So, dear Geraldine, you have it right: a different standard is applied for Obama; also for Jackson, Sharpton and all other “people of color”.

Per the AP, Obama also wrote: "With Reverend Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good,". Of course this church’s denomination came out very strongly in defense of the Rev: "It's time for all of us to say no to these attacks and to declare that we will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological ends," John H. Thomas, United Church of Christ's president, said in the statement. It’s “ideological” when you don’t like the criticism, right?

No doubt, if there was no exotic candidate around, then a woman candidate would have had the claim to the “victim” preference. Ladies, you’ve got to learn to stand patiently in line; gender victimhood is less “compelling” than race victimhood. Them are the breaks, folks!

Oh well, different standards for different people. Poor Geraldine, we hardly knew ya.

“As long as it does not affect his job performance”

Gov. Eliot Spitzer has absolutely nothing to fear. His career is safe and he can hold his head up high. After all, he is a Liberal Democrat and proud of it. Liberals believe that personal behavior, as long as it is not criminal or “harms” anyone else, is a “private” matter and cannot be used to threaten the person’s livelihood. The standard, as relentlessly promulgated by Human Resources departments all over American business, is that personal behavior, no matter how reprehensible, is not a reason for firing, or even admonishing, a worker “As long as it does not affect his job performance”.

In public life, the (low) standard for Liberals was established when they defended Bill Clinton’s shenanigans with Monica as a “personal family tragedy”. In fact, it helped Hillary Clinton get elected to the Senate on the “victim” exception! And the little problem of perjury was only a minor offense, in Liberals’ estimation, because it was related to a “personal (sex) matter”.

Republicans, of course, are not granted the “personal” waiver; they are expected, by both Liberals and Conservatives, to be more pure because of their advocacy of “morality” (Liberals consider that hypocrisy, which must be punished by enforcing strict adherence to “family values” standards for erring Conservatives). That is why people like Livingston and Gingrich can be driven out of public life while Clinton and any number of congressional Democrats only get a good talking to - if that (especially if they are gay).

Don’t worry Eliot; surely you can demonstrate that consorting with prostitutes does not affect your job performance.

Outraged! "Not That There Is Anything Wrong With It", Part 2

In today's New York Times , Mr. Nicholas D. Kristof is outraged at the calumny being cast on Islam and Muslims. Of course, good Liberal that he is, he tries to confuse the discussions about Obama's religion, or the acceptability of having an observant Muslim (or a Muslim "nationalist", for that matter) as a presidential candidate, by injecting in all that nonsense about the Antichrist. This is a classic technique for diverting the discussion away from what are legitimate issues and concerns by dragging in the absurd extreme.

A more relevant context to discuss this issue is whether, during the Cold War years, it would have been proper to inquire whether a candidate was a Soviet-sympathizing communist. While the electorate should have the freedom to vote for someone who is sympathetic to our enemies in an on-going conflict, it is imperative, first of all, to KNOW where his sympathies lie and not to provide him blanket cover because of political correctness or an overblown sense of non-judgementalism.

As it stands now, Muslims are – and should be – suspect in their sympathies and loyalties. ALL evidence now points to the unsuitability of Muslims as residents in Western societies, let alone as candidates for high office. Though the “intellectual” classes (and not a few fuzzy-headed religious leaders) would not admit it, Europe is now deathly afraid of “their” Muslims. They shudder every time someone says or writes something that might be “offensive” to Muslims or Islam. They have surrendered any sense of intellectual honesty and wrapped their fears in the cloaks of “tolerance” and “diversity”, mouthing endless inanities about the “religion of peace”, “Muslim tolerance” (back in the dim past!) and – in the extreme - adopted Muslims (and Muslim causes) as the most fashionable of protected classes currently making the rounds.

We in the United States have set ourselves up for the same outcome by our idiotic immigration “reform” of 1965 and unquestioning acceptance of just about any excuse to grant amnesty even to the most virulent haters of our societies (Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, where are you?). We could have handled the few native clowns like the Nation of Islam, but we are now getting inundated just as Europe has already been.

The “intelligentsia” in the West has let itself be seduced by the “intellectual” Muslims now seeded in our think tanks and universities (often funded by the rich Arab countries) into accepting the notion of Islam to be truly a “religion of peace”. In fact, Islam by its very nature, is a religious AND political system (as the Roman Catholic Church once aspired to be). Therefore a candidate being a Muslim is a legitimate question to ask - and to fear. As a side note (we can only hope that he was a poor example), the only known Muslim leader of a Western nation in recent times was the very “secular” Carlos Saúl Menem, former president of Argentina – and he has been accused of covering up Hezbollah’s involvement in the bombings in Buenos Aires. Not a very reassuring precedent and gives lie to the proposition that religion (or ethnicity) doesn’t matter.

As for Obama, the NY Times OP-Eders can’t have it both ways: if his exotic background is going to make him a “light unto the world”, then questioning every aspect of his background is entirely legitimate.

Desperate Democrats Need To Say "Not That There Is Anything Wrong With It"

The Democrats and the Liberal chattering classes are so desperate to make Barack Hussein Obama look “normal” and unthreatening that they are willing to implicitly insult one of the innumerable “identity” groups to which they show such obsequiousness. And not just any group either, but the most glamorous and most fashionable group of all, right now: MUSLIMS!

The desperation extends to the “change agent” himself. How many times have he and his apologists vigorously denied that he is now or has ever been a Muslim? The fervor of their denials would make the Spanish Inquisition (or at least the old House Un-American Activities Committee) proud of their effectiveness in eliciting such enthusiastic and heart-felt testimony.

AND not even a backwards nod to this poor, maligned, discriminated-against, victim group. Where is the compassion? Where is the defense of the right of even a crazy Muslim to fulfill the American Dream and become president? Nothing! Oh maybe just a slight murmur now and then. But no great assertion, no cry of indignation, on behalf of this sainted victim group. Not now! At least not until the election of the “chosen one” has been accomplished.

Such callousness… such mendacity… SUCH DESPERATION!

The least they could do, after every denial, is to utter the great benediction from Seinfeld, "Not That There Is Anything Wrong With It". Sort of like the benediction that Muslims utter every time they say the name of the goat-herd... err... the “prophet”, “Blessings be upon him”. Now THERE is respect.

Back Home in Kenya

The obsession of Liberals with Barack Obama and his “compelling” life story as a qualification for the presidency is getting to be beyond pathetic. Recently two of the NY Times columnists trudged themselves into the backwoods of Kenya to connect with “Obama’s Kenyan Roots” (Nicholas Kristof) and to commune with “The Obamas of the World” (Roger Cohen).

Both of them tell essentially disagreeable stories about backward people from a backward world, full of retrograde ideas like polygamy; Islam; religious conversions for convenience (his father apparently converted to Catholicism, then to Islam so he could practice polygamy. Charming!). Yet to these supposedly sophisticated, enlightened, gentlemen (Kristof makes his reputation fighting for abused women all over the world but, apparently, Muslim polygamy isn’t so bad), the exotica is overwhelming. And more than that: his “story” (like the life of Jesus?) is so inspirational and so like the rest of “the world” that he will lead America to salvation in the eyes of the rest of humanity (or at least the European Left).

And the quotes! Mr. Cohen cites some “inconsistencies” (for a white politician they would be considered lies or, at least, embellishments) "but I’ll excuse him" Mr. Cohen says, for these "lapses of memory” REALLY, how generous of him. He also quotes Mr. Obama’s half-sister in Kenya: “He can be trusted,” says Auma, “to be in dialogue with the world.” Considering that he basically ignored his Kenyan roots until he needed them for a good “read”, AND they became politically useful (he sure KNOWS white Liberals and what makes them vibrate), she is exceedingly generous in her support. But, of course, if he wins the presidency, we can expect to see her front and center - and all over – enjoying her moments in the limelight.

This is “All Kumbaya All The Time” for soft-headed Liberals. What on earth has this to do with the presidency of the United States?

Mr. Obama’s father and his relationships with his wives and children seem to be hardly the source of "dreams"; more like a nightmare. As for his mother: what was she? Naive? Stupid? Out to experience "adventure" at the expense of the lives of her children? She married a BIGAMIST? A supposedly sensible, even enlightened, college-educated American woman? Then, when he abandons her, she finds herself another "exotic" Muslim and the adventure continues.

If anything, Mr. Obama seems to be the product of one of the most dysfunctional families anywhere. Hardly a model or inspiration for anyone.

When is this suspension of disbelief; this spell, white Liberals are under going to end? Poor Hillary, how could she know that she was going to be done in by all the Liberal claptrap she’s been spouting all these years? What delicious irony!

Democracy, Mobocracy and Rampant Egalitarianism

The candidate selection process that the Democrats are now stuck with is a direct result of all their pathetic attempts at egalitarianism and "fairness" to all the activists and identity groups that make up the Democratic Party. What they ended up with is something that looks like the Italian parliament.

This ever-proliferating, ever-changing, "reform" process makes the old smoke-filled room seem like the height of sanity and good governance. The closest things left to the old ways are the "super-delegates" that were intended to act as the (anti-democratic) safety checks to save the party from its excesses (read McGovern in 1972 and Carter in 1976). Now, of course, when they are really needed, the cry is that they must act in the "democratic" way and go with the candidate who has a plurality but not the required majority and push him or her over the top, no matter whether he/she is injurious to the party's interests or not. If that is the only purpose they now serve (instead of as a sanity check to ensure the nomination of an "electable" candidate), then why bother to have them at all?

No matter how much the Democrats tinker and fiddle to let everyone be heard and be represented, someone will always have the advantage or the knowledge to be able to "game" the system. Human nature and ingenuity will always win out. And no matter how much "tolerance", "inclusiveness" or "diversity" (or whatever the latest fashionable operative word is) the Democrats strive for, some group is bound to feel "excluded" and resentful. May it ever be so for the Liberals and their “mosaic” - at least for as long as they continue to be obsessed with identity over competence.

COG and ZOG

Ralph Nader and other Leftist "progressives" have taken to referring to Washington as "Corporate-Occupied Territory", "Corporate-Occupied Government" or some variation on that. This locution is uncomfortably close to the use by the anti-Semitic Right of "Zionist Occupied Government" when referring to supposed evil "Jewish power" and its control of the American Government (presumably for the benefit of Israel).

Considering the strong similarity between the two references, one would think that this is hardly a coincidence. The wonder is that no one in the mainstream media has questioned Mr. Nader and the other "progressives" about this usage. Now that he is running for president again, he seems to be on TV and in the news constantly and makes these kinds of references frequently, thus there are many opportunities to question him on this. Is this too embarrassing a question to ask this icon of “progressivism "? Or, almost as distressing, perhaps the leading lights of the media are too ignorant, or not informed enough, to recognize the connection? Considering Mr. Nader's and the Left's hatred of Israel and of "Zionist" influence in America, it would seem the question would be a very natural one - again, assuming that all these "talking heads" know enough to make the connection.

Harvard --- Semi-Coed

It looks like Harvard is getting with the program to Islamize America. Or at least to defer to Muslim exceptionalism.

The decision to have "limited" hours for "women only" in a Harvard gym, only shows how limited liberal commitment is to American integration or (Allah forbid) to assimilation. One has to wonder, would they have done this for equally retrograde Orthodox Jewish girls?

Apparently, it never occurred to the university that, if "covered" Muslim girls don't want to expose their precious bodies to the gaze of men, they could join one of the private all-woman gyms that exist all over the country - most certainly in feminist-sensitive MA. But, of course, that would not have demonstrated Harvard's "sensitivity" to this "identity group".

Better to compromise the ideals of an integrated, open, society than to hurt the sensitive feelings of future mothers of Muslim Jihadists.