The museum should have never kowtowed to the angry rabble to begin with. Once you apologize, it is hard to make a boundary. You’ve exposed your belly and it will be lanced. Continue reading
A letter to my fellow trans people:
About the recent Caitlyn Jenner controversy regarding her support for Ted Cruz and her conservative views: It is true that not all transsexuals are in the tank for the far left, or are “feeling the Bern”. Some of us are not even voting for Hillary. Continue reading
Happy New Year 2016!
In spite of the PC madness on college campuses, the growing and very real threat of ISIS and assorted Islamic terror, the relatively sluggish economy and the comical chaos of a presidential race that may come down to Trump vs. Clinton (OH NO) — the American people are resilient, ornery and innovative. In other words, the whole nation isn’t going to hell quite yet. Continue reading
At some point, people who are LGBT identified need to ask ourselves — why socialism?
Hope your Holiday season is churning along!
Things do seem to have gotten out of hand if a completely unknown individual like Justine Sacco can make a dumb and racist comment, and — lose her job. Many people make the same comments, or comments that can be construed in that way, and they don’t lose their jobs and the entire world is not exploding with outrage. Probably, few would be working if that happened, and the world would just not have time for all that outrage — which would be continuous since people say shitty things all day long if you take into account all the people in the world. I mean someone somewhere, is saying something insensitive, fat phobic, racially insensitive, vertically challenged phobic, homophobic, transphobic, or just plain retarded! Oops! There I go, I said something insensitive… Can I say “stupid”? Not sure any more. I know the term “lame” is contested in some circles. Any way… Apparently, even for an unknown, random person, social media is like a megaphone that can be heard the entire world over. Imagine her shock when she discovered that the entire WORLD was in outrage over her tweet! People apparently, just LOVE to be outraged! It makes them feel superior and morally righteous. Mob action… I am aware of this tendency but the Sacco story and others make you take pause even more deeply… It takes the fun and spontaneity out of social media. I wonder if people will get over this tendency to be outraged over every dumb tweet? Or, I guess people will just censor themselves…
Have a fantastic New Year and – try not to let the humorless, the easily put-upon, or the nutbags with an agenda get you down. Try not to stay stupid things also, but since we all do say them sometimes, at least – try not to tweet them. And, if you do, let’s hope people have some perspective but — don’t hold your breath! They probably will not.
Glenn Greenwald is one of those lefties I agree with on occasion, although his views on Israel are way off the mark. And, no doubt, he leans socialist. However, he is very interested in civil liberties, and in this — we at least approach agreement or sometimes even flat-out agree. Here, he brings up the recent Chick Fil-A business and how it is dangerous for a government to try and ban a business, simply because it does not agree with that business’s speech. It violates constitutionally protected free speech. And, I imagine that Greenwald, like me, is all for gay marriage. He believes that if you don’t like Chick Fil-A’s views on gay marriage, or their contributions to anti-gay marriage groups, write them a letter or don’t eat there. There are other ways to let them know you disapprove, and of course, you can ignore them and work for the side promoting gay marriage and drown their voices out with better, more articulate arguments. That works better in the long run, and — it keeps the anti-gay marriage groups from feeling, in this case justifiably, persecuted.
“Should government officials be able to block businesses from opening or expanding due to disagreement with the political views of the business’ executives? Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel evidently believes he should have this power:
The anti-gay views openly espoused by the president of a fast food chain specializing in chicken sandwiches have run afoul of Mayor Rahm Emanuel and a local alderman, who are determined to block Chick-fil-A from expanding in Chicago.
“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said Wednesday.
“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”
I know this censorship (and that’s what it is, and in the constitutional sense) — is happening in Boston as well, thanks to the Mayor of Boston.
Greenwald points out to those on the left (or supporters of gay marriage on the right) who are still obtuse on this matter, that they most likely would object if a governmental body or agency decided to ban from the city or country any corporation or small business that supported choice, or gay rights or — (on the right) supported Israel. In Europe, I hear that governments are banning Israeli businesses, and this feels ominous to me as a supporter of Israel, but more importantly, it is an overstepping of the authority of government that we should never allow in this country. Let’s not be like Europe in this case, and I do think this is unconstitutional.
We do have protected free speech and just because it is speech that I don’t like, doesn’t mean I can get the Mayor of a major American city to ban it by banning the business. Since when does a government ban businesses based on their contributions to a cause? Plus, there is nothing more galling than a bunch of anti-gay activists feeling “oppressed”. Cry me a river. But in this case, they actually have a justifiable reason for feeling that way, and that’s just no good.
A disturbing report about the UC campuses that is not hard to believe,most unfortunately. See especially the downloads of the studies, linked to in the article.
We’re in trouble.
Note: I’ve had someone point out to me that there may be problems with this article in that UC Berkeley appears to have more courses in western civ (at least from the perspective of European history) than purported here. However, check this out. There is something to it. I know that David Horowitz has been noticing this issue for some time, and was ahead of the curve on this problem. He has stated that while there are few conservative professors in the Humanities, that most left wing professors don’t teach in a biased way. He said only around 10% do, but I do think that can be a crucial 10%. Of course, some departments are more heavily biased toward a left-wing perspective than others. In any event, the reports bear looking at and the article is certainly of great interest.
NEW STUDY SHOWS RADICALS RULE AT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA by by DAN GAGLIASSO.
The California Association of Scholars, a division of the National Association of Scholars, have just released an incendiary report showing that all nine of the University of California’s campuses have been compromised by too many politicized courses and radical faculty members. CAS members include a number of current or past professors from the UC system who have taught at UC-Berkeley, UCLA, UC-Santa Cruz, and UC-San Diego.
Conservatives have long complained of a strong liberal bias in college classrooms, and this new study shows just how far off track it has gone in one of the most prestigious public university systems in the country. You can read the full CAS 81-page report here.
CAS’s president John Ellis knows very well of what he speaks; he’s a professor emeritus of German Literature from UC Santa Cruz. “The quality of education at the University of California has been jeopardized by political activism,“ Professor Ellis said in a phone interview. “Dogmatism is rapidly displacing open-minded inquiry, especially in the social sciences and humanities, to the severe disadvantage of students.”
A Crisis in Competence: The Corrupting Influence of Political Activism in the University of California isn’t trying to purge the system of differing left of center opinions. The well-documented study just hopes to even the playing field so students get a quality education – an education that has standards and teaches students to look at all sides of the issues. The CAS report emphasizes common sense observations that seem to be beyond the grasp of the assumed intelligent members of the UC Board of Regents.
One observation points out that “a political science department with one half of the spectrum of political thought missing cannot be considered a competent department.” It seems only a Marxist professor with an agenda and no common sense would disagree with that idea from this new study. Unfortunately, as the study shows, there are a lot more Marxists now teaching in the University of California system than you would think.
The CAS report took the time to carefully vet the studies it cites from various institutions, including George Mason University, the Center for the Study of Popular culture, and many others. They even scoured carefully scrutinized and recorded students complaints on the subject, many of which you can read here.
Here a just a few of the conclusions about the University of California system that CAS came to:
There has been a sharp increase in faculty members who self-identify as radicals. This has led to “one party” academic departments, such as at Berkeley, where left-of-center faculty members outnumber their right-of-center colleagues in Political Science by a ratio of 28:2, in English 29:1 and in History 31:1. A number of these professors are openly avowed Marxists! (Has Van Jones applied for one of these positions?)
Many curricula promote political activism, in violation of UC regulations. Critical Race Studies at UCLA’s School of Law, for example, aims to be a “training ground” for advocates committed to racial justice theory and practice (sounds like Harvard during the Professor Derrick Bell/Obama years).
Several departments attempt to erase the study of Western tradition. History majors are now not required to take a survey course in Western civilization on any of the nine University of California campuses. Four more UC campuses have dropped their American History requirements (many UC students cannot even answer basic questions about American or World History).
Suppression of free speech is commonplace. Speakers at UC Berkeley who have been shouted down by protesters include Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Secretary of State Madeline Albright, and Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner (but Columbia welcomes Iran’s Ahmadinejad to speak with open arms).
Radical and left-of-center UC professors favor hiring like-minded new academics and block the hiring of new professors who don’t “think the right way.” (Why would a conservative incur the enormous debt and hassles pursuing a Ph. D. if the possibility of a professor’s job is little or nil?)
The advancement of “social justice” is now the open aim of a number of UC faculty members and even whole departments in the system (if a student asks questions or writes answers or papers that challenge these professors and their radical assumptions they can expect a poor grade).
The UC curriculum has been gutted because too many professors now show an open preference for promoting a partisan political agenda. These are just a few of the important issues confronting the UC system that the CAS study raises and documents in very credible fashion.
Resident conservative Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post compared the 25th anniversary of the publication of Allan Bloom’s groundbreaking The Closing of the American Mind to the release of the new CAS report. She astutely pointed out that, “…the left systematically has dumbed its side down, to the point where supposedly well-educated elites are untrained and unaware of our country’s history and constitutional traditions.”
The rest here and comments of course: New study of UC System proves radical professors rule
Woke up yesterday to the news of Andrew Breitbart’s death. There’s been a lot written and a lot of it is memorable. I remember seeing this speech not long after it was given at CPAC. A true warrior! Here, after facing down the Occupy crowd outside CPAC who were busy hassling people entering the convention, Breitbart relates his recent dinner with ex-domestic terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers (the Daily Caller editor Tucker Carlson had won a dinner with them and invited him along) and his greater vision regarding the far and hard left’s agenda of intolerance and tyranny (they call it “revolution”). I think Breitbart was an ex-leftist himself and knew them well. Once, he skated over on rollerblades to the site of an Occupy Wallstreet demo and ended up taking them all out to Appleby’s. No doubt, they still disagreed, but apparently, the intrepid Occupiers were charmed, and — for once, opposing sides met as people with disagreements and ideas, instead of as cartoon opponents. He was funny, fearless and passionate — and he knew the stakes are high.
Other bloggers have amazing links and testimony on knowing him or seeing him work, here from Pamela Geller: BREITBART: BIG, BIGGER THAN LIFE
Here, neo-neocon: Devasting news: Andrew Breitbart dead at 43
And, from The National Review, Here from Michael Walsh:
“In the war against the institutional Left, Andrew Breitbart was the Right’s Achilles; the bravest of all the warriors, now fallen on the plain. There was no combat in which he would not engage, no battle — however small — he would not join with glee, and no outcome acceptable except total victory. His unexpected death last night at the young age of 43 is not the end of his crusade, but its beginning.
No figure on our side was more despised in the whited sepulchers of the media/academic/political Left, and Breitbart wore their loathing as a daily badge of honor. His refusal to grant even a glimmer of moral absolution constantly enraged them, and his very existence was an affront to their carefully constructed — to use one of Andrew’s favorite words — “narrative” of moral superiority. Naturally, they are already dancing on his grave, with the manic joy of being suddenly and miraculously delivered from one of their most potent enemies.
Breitbart’s death is a tragedy, not only for those who delighted in following him into battle but for those who cheered him on as well. Andrew was larger than life, a charismatic natural leader, a big man in every way — physically, spiritually, and intellectually. He would meet a total stranger and immediately try to enlist him or her into his army, railing against the Left’s mendacity and misdeeds. He would practically pick you up by the lapels and shake you in order to make you understand the furious, urgent necessity of his fight.
Confrontation was his métier, and he routinely and gleefully waded into groups of lefties to challenge them face to face. Puckish humor was his stock-in-trade, and he would often disarm opponents with his boyish, goofy side. He was a virtuoso of the Twitterverse, a master of multi-tasking, and would think nothing of having a meeting with colleagues in his Westwood home while talking on the phone to someone else and working his Twitter feed. He joked that he had ADD, but what he really had was an outsized heart, fueled by courage and passion and, as the title of his recent book had it, by Righteous Indignation.
That indignation came to Breitbart in mid-life. A bluff Irishman who had been adopted as a baby by a Jewish couple in Brentwood (one of L.A.’s tonier neighborhoods), he moved to the right in college, at Tulane University in New Orleans, and crossed over completely with the Clarence Thomas hearings, which fueled his rage against the Left for their hypocritical treatment of American blacks. I can personally attest that no cause fired his righteous indignation more than the Left’s plantation attitude toward African-Americans. ”
From here: Goodbye Andrew
And, here, about Breitbart’s quest to create “punk rock” Republicans…
“The left is smart enough to understand that the way to change a political system is through its cultural systems,” he told The New Yorker’s Rebecca Mead in 2010. “So you look at the conservative movement — working the levers of power, creating think tanks, and trying to get people elected in different places — while the left is taking over Hollywood, the music industry, the churches.”
His project was to take that cultural space back for free market conservatives. To make his brand of economic freedom cool.
He was often disheveled, unshaven, and looked more like a wild eyed provocateur than a button down and mild mannered conservative. He wanted more conservative (classic liberal) artists and writers who had edge and who understood pop culture. He was supportive of gay and lesbian people being invited into the larger tent of conservatism and supported the inclusion of GOProud at CPAC. Here:
Breitbart, who had joined the advisory board of GOProud in January 2011, hosted a party for the organization at CPAC that year.
When the presence of GOProud at CPAC in 2011 was questioned by some on the right, it was Breitbart who told Metro Weekly, “If being conservative means rejecting gay conservatives because they are gay, then fine, I’m not a conservative.”
He will be missed, but his example leads all of us with similar values and principals onward. In my own quest to find and embody the spirit of — “Punk Rock Republicans”, I guess I can start by stepping out a bit more on the ledge that he loved to dance on. I did some battle on FB with a post on his death, and in the ensuing dialogue I ended up inadvertently and with some specific intent — coming out! Coming out on FB. And, people actually go there in larger quantity than here (most unfortunately). I guess, that is the most fitting tribute I could begin to give.
The killings in Norway – insane, and heinous and entirely evil would be wrong no matter who did them and no matter which political ideology they represented. There can be no doubt of that, and certainly no debate.
However, I would agree with Bruce Bawer when he states that this (hopefully) singular and evil act should not be construed as an excuse to avert our attention from the very real threat that Radical Islam poses to Europe, the entirety of western civilization, and indeed to the whole world. Bawer lives in Norway as an American expatriate and a gay man. He is in many respects, like myself, an unlikely convert to the values of classic liberalism. Indeed, he claims to still be a Democrat, but in any case, many would consider him a conservative. Labels aside (and I am not one to eschew labels as being entirely useless), Bawer knows of what he speaks and so I am linking to his article here. First, I quote:
“Those of us who thought, in the first hours after the blasts in downtown Oslo, that we were witnessing yet another act of jihad can be forgiven. In a way, it made sense. 9/11, London, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Mumbai — why not Oslo? Then again…Norway, although a member of NATO with troops in Afghanistan and Libya, was not exactly in the forefront of the struggle to defeat jihad. On the contrary. Norway calls itself “the peace country.” For years, the Norwegian government and cultural establishment have striven to communicate to even the most extreme elements of international Islam that they want to be friends. They’ve shown their good faith in a number of ways:
They’ve made a great show of treating Jews very shabbily. Jostein Gaarder, author of the international bestseller Sophie’s World, published an op-ed a few years back declaring his contempt for Israel and the Jewish people. When Gaarder came in for some criticism, many high-profile members of the Norwegian cultural elite rushed to stand shoulder to shoulder with him. If the cultural elite in Norway is more anti-Semitic than its counterparts in any other country in Europe, it has a great deal to do with the recognition that the more you like the Jews, the more you’ll antagonize the Muslims.
They’ve been extremely gentle with Mullah Krekar, Norway’s resident terrorist. While some government officials have (admirably) labored to get the founder of Ansar al-Islam returned to his native Iraq, the system has repeatedly protected him, allowing him to stay in a very nice flat in Oslo, where he is supported by the state. Over the years the Norwegian media have churned out countless profiles of this murderous, child-torturing monster, invariably depicting him as a charming, grandfatherly type and allowing him plenty of space to bash the United States.
They’ve squelched criticism of Islam. In January 2006, Vebjørn Selbekk, editor of a small evangelical publication called Magazinet, reprinted the Danish Muhammed cartoons — and sent the Norwegian establishment into a tailspin. Politicians at the very highest level pressured Selbekk to apologize for his offense. He withstood admirably — for a while — but eventually buckled, and on February 10, 2006, appeared before a gathering of Norwegian imams and begged their forgiveness for having exercised his freedom of speech. Top government officials looked on in satisfaction, and a delegation led by a bishop of the Church of Norway traveled to Yemen to deliver the happy tidings of this capitulation to the theologian widely viewed as the closest thing to a Muslim pope, Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
They’ve dropped displays of Islamic totalitarianism down the memory hole. Two years ago, on two separate nights, a small army of Norwegian Muslim youths rioted in the heart of Oslo, turning a usually placid quarter into something reminiscent of Sarajevo or Beirut at their worst. The alleged motive for this explosion of violence was displeasure over the situation in Gaza; the real intention was to mount a display of power — to intimidate, and to communicate to Norway that their time had come, and that they had better be listened to with respect, or else. And in February of last year, another small army of Muslims, this time not rioting boys but sullen-looking men in long coats and full beards, gathered in downtown Oslo, in the same square where Vidkun Quisling once held his Nazi rallies, and listened with apparent pleasure while a young speaker named Mohyeldeen Mohammed threatened Norway with its own 9/11. Both of these events came and went, and the people who make decisions about this sort of thing plainly decided that it would be best to pretend that they had never happened.
They’ve openly supported terrorist groups. In the last few days, one of the major stories out of Norway has been the declaration by Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre of his country’s support for the effort by Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to seek United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state. This stance scarcely came as a surprise, given the Norwegian government’s longstanding effort to “build bridges” to Hamas. It was Støre, after all, who — when a couple of dozen Western diplomats walked out on a rabid anti-Israeli speech by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad at the 2009 UN conference on racism — was the only Westerner who chose to stay and hear him out.
And the way they’ve talked to Norwegian Muslims about Islamist terrorism has been — well, consider this. A couple of years ago, when Jørn Holme, head of security services for the Norwegian police, showed up at a meeting sponsored by the Muslim Students Association, supposedly to discuss terrorism, surveillance, and the Muslim community, his main goal seemed to be to bond with the Muslims in attendance by putting down ethnic Norwegians (who, he said, were “too stupid to understand that there is no connection” between Islam and terrorism) as well as white American Christians (“In the United States in the sixties,” he told the audience, “blacks were raped by whites who went to church the next day”). Holme called the United State “human-rights-violation-country number one” and said that his greatest fear, when he contemplated a possible terrorist act in Norway, was that such an act would inflame anti-Muslim prejudice.”
Bawer goes on to state in his article that he fears that legitimate criticism of Islam may be squelched by this act of barbaric and delusional political violence. I wonder, reading his points above, what criticism there is in any case? However, his point is a good one. As hate speech laws proliferate in intensity in other places in the EU and in Canada (the circus of Section 13), these murders can only add to the anti-free speech project of the left. Bruce makes a good deal of other points and of course, has noticed that Anders Behring Breivik has mentioned his name, although with a certain amount of uncertainty as to his credibility as Bawer is gay. Of course, many of the people that I often read and admire for their uncompromising anti-Jihad stances are named in the pages of Breivik’s exhaustingly long “manifesto” which was apparently, often copied from the loony screed of the Unibomber with a few key changes to make it relevant to his own purposes. In any case, Bawer continues here…
“During those hours when we all thought this was a jihadist attack, one thought that crossed my mind was that this would change the political map of Norway. For years, the Progress Party, which is the second largest of Norway’s seven or eight major parties, has led the way in calling for more responsible policies on the immigration and integration of people from Muslim countries — and has been demonized as a bunch of right-wing extremist xenophobes who hate Muslims. I assumed that after this attack, Norwegians would vote in a Progress Party-led government in the next elections. Now it appears that the man who committed all these murders is a former member of the Progress Party and is, indeed, a right-wing extremist xenophobe who harbors (according to Dagbladet) a “violent hatred for Muslims” and multiculturalism, and who targeted the Labor Party youth camp because he blames the ruling Labor Party for the Islamization of Norway. Norway’s political future looks very different now, in short, than it did 24 hours ago.
It gets worse. Anders Behring Breivik, it turns out, was a frequent commenter at a website, document.no, that is run by a friend of mine in Norway, Hans Rustad, and that is concerned largely with the Islamization of Norway. Hans’s website is down right now — I don’t know why — except for a page on which he has posted a collection of all of Breivik’s postings on the site, going back to 2009. On September 14, 2009, he wrote: “Bawer is probably not the right person to work as a bridge-builder. He is a liberal anti-jihadist and not a cultural conservative in many areas. I have my suspicions that he is TOO paranoid (I am thinking of his homosexual orientation). It can seem that he fears that ‘cultural conservatives’ will become a threat to homosexuals in the future. He refuses therefore to take the opportunity to influence this in a positive direction. This seems entirely irrational.”
On October 31, 2009, he wrote that several things needed to be done in the next twenty years in order to prevent the Islamization of Norway, among them: “Initiate a collaboration with the conservative forces in the Norwegian church. I know that the libertarian forces in the European anti-jihad movement (Bruce Bawer among others, and some other libertarians) will have a problem with this, but conservative forces in the church are in fact one of our best allies. Our main opponents must not be jihadists but the jihadists’ facilitators — namely the multiculturalists.” And on November 6, 2009, he wrote: “It is tragicomic that an important NGO like Human-Etisk Forbund [the Norwegian Humanist Association] has been taken over by a cultural Marxist when it should be run by a liberal anti-jihadist like Bruce Bawer.”
It is chilling to read my own name in postings by this mass murderer. And it is deeply depressing to see this evil, twisted creature become the face of Islam criticism in Norway. Norwegian television journalists who in the first hours of the crisis were palpably uncomfortable about the prospect of having to talk about Islamic terrorism are now eagerly discussing the dangers of “Islamophobia” and “conservative ideology” and are drawing connections between the madness and fanaticism of Breivik and the platform of the Progress Party. Yesterday’s events, then, represent a double tragedy for Norway. Not only has it lost almost one hundred people, including dozens of young people, in a senseless rampage of violence. But I fear that legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has been profoundly discredited, in the eyes of many Norwegians, by association with this murderous lunatic.”
Mark Steyn weighs in with wit (even under these circumstances) and characteristic aplomb, pointing out that in fact, no Muslims were killed so this particular form of Islamaphobia had some odd consequences:
“The mass murderer Breivik published a 1,500-page “manifesto.” It quotes me, as well as several friends of NR — Theodore Dalrymple, Daniel Pipes, Roger Scruton, Melanie Phillips, Daniel Hannan (plus various pieces from NR by Rod Dreher and others) — and many other people, including Churchill, Gandhi, Orwell, Jefferson, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain, not to mention the U.S. Declaration of Independence.* Those new “hate speech” codes the Left is already clamoring for might find it easier just to list the authors Europeans will still be allowed to read.
It is unclear how seriously this “manifesto” should be taken. Parts of it simply cut and paste chunks of the last big killer “manifesto” by Ted Kaczynski, with the occasional [insert-your-cause-here] word substitute replacing the Unabomber’s obsessions with Breivik’s. This would seem an odd technique to use for a sincerely meant political statement. The entire document is strangely anglocentric – in among the citations of NR and The Washington Times, there’s not a lot about Norway.
Nevertheless, Breivik’s manifesto seems to be determining the narrative in the anglophone media. The opening sentence from USA Today:
Islamophobia has reached a mass murder level in Norway as the confessed killer claims he sought to combat encroachment by Muslims into his country and Europe.
So, if a blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavian kills dozens of other blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavians, that’s now an “Islamophobic” mass murder? As far as we know, not a single Muslim was among the victims. Islamophobia seems an eccentric perspective to apply to this atrocity, and comes close to making the actual dead mere bit players in their own murder. Yet the Associated Press is on board:
Security Beefed Up At UK Mosques After Norway Massacre.
But again: No mosque was targeted in Norway. A member of the country’s second political party gunned down members of its first. But, in the merest evolution of post-9/11 syndrome, Muslims are now the preferred victims even in a story in which they are entirely absent. “
From here: Islamophobia and Mass Murder by Mark Steyn
And, with that I send my condolences out to Norway and to all of those people whose loved ones were killed or hurt. There is no redeeming value to this act, and I would hope that the narratives that it generates are not exploitative of those deaths, but that they instead shed light.
In other news, on a more personal note, in case you wondered where I went I just moved, and am searching for a new place to live, and am “transitioning” again! This time possibly even, eventually to a new city, though time will tell. Everything is a bit chaotic for me, but it won’t be forever. So, I’ll not be able to post quite as much as I’d like I think, but I’m still around and will check in from time to time with new observations. Thanks to all who stop by to read!
She rode in on a blazing Koran, quite literally. Ann Barnhardt has been taking the interwebs by storm, exorcising the demonic shrieking ass kissing free speech squelching demon of NICE from our collective midst. In response to Lindsay Graham’s finger shaking about the dire consequences of lighting a Koran on fire (what will happen if they get mad at us?), Ann made her own Koran burning video. Quoting hair raising Surahs that condone and command wife beating and marital rape, sex with pre-pubescent girls and boys, and of course, the beheading and maiming of “infidels” (that’s most of the people who read this blog and it is most certainly me) — Ann strikes at the heart of our fearful acquiescence and frenzied attempts to be “nice” and reasonable toward a philosophy that is anything but. “Religion of peace” – I DON’T THINK SO. She reads these nakedly violent passages, starkly sociopathic in tone, and swiftly lights each Surah on fire one by one. She works with a wand of outrage – naming evil as evil. And, unlike the gently naive if brave Molly Norris, who instigated the “Draw Mohammed for a Day” on Facebook and just as swiftly tried to take it back, once the horrible realization that Muslim radicals were indeed offended began to dawn… Ann doesn’t give a rat’s ass if an acolyte of Mohammed gets a hair up his ass. She’s pretty amazing! And, while I feel deeply for Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris, and am outraged on her behalf (since she had to go ghost to escape threats of death), I also can’t help but wonder if Ann is ultimately more able to stand her ground because she is an outright American Patriot and a conservative. Not a hipster, but a trader in cattle futures. Raised in eastern Kansas around cows and calves and cowboys, she is steeped in the down to the real landscape of midwestern and western boots and stirrups– common sense, no bullshit, and an abiding love of country. Ann is not reading Chomsky * and wacking off to his apologies for Islamic terror, she knows with a beautiful certainty that the United States, free enterprise, Christianity and Judaism are absolutely superior, at this point in time, to the drooling of Islamic radical misogyny and terror. Hell, she sees the issues endemic to Islam itself, radical or not. She sees Islam as being primarily a totalitarian political ideology and not a religion. Certainly, one can make a case for that.
You have to see for yourself; don’t take my word for it!
Now, tell me, why can’t “radicals” be this radical? I mean, leftists, actually, on campus or off? Why can’t they be this incensed by the Islamic mutilation of women and the rape of children, by honor killings or the beheading of various non-Muslims including Buddhists and the murder of Coptic Christians? Why do I only see the far left defending and minimizing the threat of Islamic radicalism? Who can we count on finally, to defend what is certainly a superior civilization? Possibly, the answer would surprise, even me. In fact, I am surprised, but I am also heartened And, yes, this video is campy, inadvertently, but it is also serious stuff folks.
* (and I apologize ahead of time, to Molly Norris if she is not into Chomsky or other ridiculous masturbatory anti-Americanism. And, even if she is… Let’s face it, she did come up with that brave and wondrous idea of everyone everywhere drawing Mohammed for a day to defuse the whole insanity, and I wish her only the best! God speed Molly, wherever you are. How sad and utterly wrong that already, Americans appear to have mostly forgotten you and your courage, and wit. I hope you come back out of this crucible stronger . Thank you for inspiring me! )