Wednesday Wrap-Up (and Open Thread)

Victorian posy of pansiesThis is what community organizers do: they go into a struggling community that anxiously awaits a high-quality, low-priced store that community members believe will help lift up their neighborhood and, shouting racial epithets, they shut the initiative down.

***

Democracy?  Who needs democracy, even a watered-down representative democracy?  Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee has announced that she will enthusiastically bypass the Congress to which she belongs and simply draft orders for His Imperial Majesty Barack Hussein Sotero Obama to sign.

***

Labeling as “criminals” people who commit illegal acts is somehow insulting.  I wonder if Justice Sotomayor, who made this Orwellian statement, has the same standard when it comes to pedophiles.  (Maybe Woody Allen can help her answer that question.  And yes, I think he’s guilty, if only because so many of his movies reflect an old man’s obsession with young, female flesh.)

***

John Kerry lies, and lies, and lies — this time about Israel.  And he lies precisely in the same way Barack Obama does:  blatantly and unashamedly, secure in the knowledge that a compliant media (and, in this regard, that includes Fox) will not call him out.

Speaking of Fox and Israel, I’m wondering something. Al Waleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family and one of the richest men in the world, is the second largest holder of shares in Fox. In the past, he’s claimed to have put pressure on Fox to tilt the news his (and Saudi Arabia’s) way.  That meant that Fox, while reliably conservative in most ways, was more Muslim-friendly and less-Israel friendly than one would expect.  Now, though, Saudi Arabia and Israel suddenly have similar interests:  keeping the bomb out of Iran and preventing Iran from becoming the true power broker in the Middle East.  I wonder if this will change Fox’s tilt.  I don’t have an answer, because I don’t watch TV news.  Has anyone noticed a change in Fox News’ coverage?

***

And speaking of Muslim-friendly news, CAIR is advertising a “walk against Islamophobia.”  I love Drew’s comment at Weasel Zipper’s:  “If CAIR really think so-called ‘Islamophobia’ is a problem then why don’t they hold a ‘walk against Islamic terrorism?’ Wait, that means they would have to condemn their co-religionists, never mind.”  That statement really nails the problem with CAIR, doesn’t it?

***

Oh, and while I’m piling up on Islam, Daniel Greenburg wrote a Groundhog Day post looking at the fact that Islam never breaks free of its endless day of winter.

***

And while I’m on the subject of Daniel Greenburg, he’s got another superb post (he’s always got superb posts), this one about the utopian Universalists, who speak the language of universal love while spreading antisemitic hate.

***

Salon has sunk to new lows by openly promoting communism (and no, I won’t link to that drek).  It does so, of course, through lies.  Tom Toth calls out Salon on its latest pro-Communist grotesqueries.

***

As an aside, looking at the posts above about Islamism, antisemitism, Universalism, and communism, I can only say that it’s not true that man is the most dangerous animal of all.  The truth is that there are certain subsets of man who deny morality, individual freedom, and the worth of the individual — they are the most dangerous animals of all.  And now back to our regularly scheduled linkfest.

***

The more I hear about Scott Walker, the more I like what I hear.  He’s courageous, tenacious, and highly effective.  Unlike Rand Paul, Mike Lee, or Ted Cruz, all of whom are dynamos for conservativism, he hasn’t spun his wheels in the toxic environment of Congress.  Instead, despite enormous obstacles in Wisconsin, he’s wrought huge changes in that most Left of Left states.  As with other young conservatives who have appeared on the horizon, I’m not yet willing to give him my heart but, if he stays true to what he seems to be at this moment in time, he might well be my guy.

***

And finally, I was not charmed or moved by Budweiser’s “Welcome home, soldier” Super Bowl commercial.  This was not a community’s spontaneous outpouring for a returned soldier; it was a corporate event.  As best as I could tell, it was the commercial equivalent of astroturf, rather than grass-roots, organization.  I was therefore completely unsurprised to read that Budweiser wasn’t the only self-promoting corporation involved.  Lt. Chuck Nadd also makes a career out of self-promotion.  As the post to which I linked said, this is the American way.  But it doesn’t mean you have to be moved or manipulated by it.

“Rid the world of those savages!”

Froggy, who blogs at BlackFive, attended the funeral of Ty Woods, one of the former Navy SEALS who died trying to defend the consulate in Benghazi that State Department policy left completely exposed.  Dorothy Woods, Ty’s widow, had the emotional strength to deliver a powerful eulogy for her husband.  Froggy was especially struck by two things that she said:

“It is easy to write a book about being a Navy SEAL, but it is very hard to write an obituary for one.”

“To all the Operators here today I give you this charge: Rid the world of those savages.  I’ll say it again, RID THE WORLD OF THOSE SAVAGES!”

I won’t comment directly on what Dorothy Woods said, because I think it needs no comment. I will, however, pair it with a discussion of Pamela Gellar’s important Free Speech victory against the New York Transit Authority.  It all started when Pamela Geller, who blogs at Atlas Shrugs, wanted to put up an add in the subway system:

Please study the ad carefully to confirm to your own satisfaction that says nothing about Islam or about Muslims generally.  Instead, it asks that American citizens “defeat jihad,” which the paragraph above describes as the side of “the savage” in a way.  Jihad is not a religion, it is not a race, and it is not a religious practitioner.  It is a doctrine:  it is a Holy War intended to kill or subjugate those whom the jihadists deem are “infidels.”  It is about conquest, rapine, death, and slavery.

In the face of protests from Muslim groups (including CAIR), the subway system backed down on the ground that the ad was “demeaning.”  PowerLine asks the right question:  Demeaning to whom?

“Demeaning”? Again, demeaning toward whom? Jihadists. Are jihadists now some kind of protected class?

They are to those Muslims who understand that jihadists (coincidentally, I’m sure) all happen to profess the same faith.  And one of their numbers was upset because, you know, even though his is a religion of peace, if you upset the jihadists, their co-religionists might have to get violent:

Abdul Yasar, a New York subway rider who considers himself an observant Muslim, said Geller’s ad was insensitive in an unsettling climate for Muslims.

“If you don’t want to see what happened in Libya and Egypt after the video — maybe not so strong here in America — you shouldn’t put this up,” Yasar said.

So, the ad doesn’t mention Muslims, but Muslims understand it to mean that they are savages, which they assure us they are not.  Still if you don’t take down the ad, they will be forced into savagery — and it’s all your fault, you infidel!.  Oooh, I’m so confused.

Let me give PowerLine the last word (and PowerLine, in turn, is quoting from the New York Post):

But aren’t they [the words] offensive only to jihadists, which is to say, mass murderers and their supporters? If you advocate mass murder, shouldn’t you expect to be offended? At a minimum?

Opponents say the ads imply that Muslims are savages.

But wait! Aren’t we constantly told that jihadists aren’t really Muslims? That Islam is staunchly opposed to terrorism? So how are all Muslims encompassed within the term “jihad”?

“We recognize the freedom of speech issues and her right to be a bigot and a racist,” said Muneer Awad, the executive director of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. But he said he hopes the MTA and elected officials “take on a leadership role in denouncing hate speech.”

So now jihadists are a race? I am so confused! And does CAIR really think that denouncing jihadists constitutes “hate speech?” If jihadists can’t be denounced, then who can be?

This is the sort of confusion that is, in its own way, clarifying.

Fortunately, U.S. District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer managed to cut through the confusion in order to reach the correct conclusion:  Pamela Gellar’s ad was protected Free Speech.  The transit system must place her ads on its subway trains.

Dorothy Woods knows who the savages are. Pamela Geller knows who the savages are. And you and I know who the savages are. “RID THE WORLD OF THOSE SAVAGES.”

Navy again moves to protect SEALS from angry Muslims

The Navy SEALS’ job, pretty much, is to deal with Muslims who have an axe to grind.  For years in Afganistan and Iraq, they’ve used their strength and skills to face down Islamists in the battlefield.  Facing angry Islamists in the political field, though, is apparently more than the SEALS — or, more accurately, their politically connected higher ups — can stand.  Today’s example:  the Navy’s decision to pretend that men and women wearing burqas aren’t legitimate targets against which the SEALS should train:

The Navy will not use a target depicting a Muslim woman holding a gun at a new training range for SEALs in Virginia Beach.

The announcement came hours after the Council on American-Islamic Relations asked the Pentagon to remove the target. A picture of the cardboard target, which shows a woman in a headscarf holding a pistol, was published in The Virginian-Pilot on Tuesday. The image shows verses of the Quran hanging on the wall behind the woman, which also generated criticism from the group.

Greg, at Rhymes with Right, has some hilarious suggestions for targets the Navy’s Nervous Nellies might find less threatening.

This subject hits home with me, because I took a ton of flak a few months ago for suggesting that the SEALS cried craven when they decided to make their mass murdering terrorist warlord a Jew.  I learned through confidential sources that I can’t reveal here that the pivotal scene, the one in which the mastermind is revealed to be Jewish came about accidentally, and that the SEALS didn’t intend to make that point initially.  I’m willing to accept that claim in good faith.

But as I kept complaining, the powers that be, once that mistake was made, had two choices.  They could have corrected it, which would have been the proper and brave thing to do; or they could have run with it, happy that they could sit across the table from the white collar terrorists at CAIR and promise that no real Muslims would be maligned in the making of the movie.

Here’s a question for SEALS and their ilk to ask themselves:  How can I fight bravely when I’m commanded by cowards?

The more you know Chelsea Clinton, the less you like her

Obama is so bad, the Clinton era starts to look good.  And Obama’s crude use of his children is so bad (dragged out when they’re presence is useful, off-limits when it’s not), that one really has to appreciate how zealously and effectively Bill and Hillary shielded Chelsea from the public.  I wish that Bill and Hillary would continue to hide Chelsea from the public.  Now that she’s become a public figure, she’s gone from bad (being the world’s most pointless and boring television host ) to worse (shilling for CAIR).

When will this Clinton nightmare ever end?

Hat tip:  Sadie

Allen West: The politician who won’t pander

Most politicians would have pandered in response to the question a CAIR person posed in the video below.  Not Allen West.  As he said, near the end of his own answer to the question, “I’ve been on the battlefield….”  Maybe we ought to make battlefield experience a prerequisite for honest politicians.  It seems that having faced real guns a good indicator that the politician will have the strength to face rhetorical guns:

Hat tip:  Earl