The Bookworm Beat 1/19/15 — abbreviated version and Open Thread

Woman writingAt a lawyer level, this has been a somewhat frustrating day, with me struggling to fit my facts (always true and honest ones) to the law (which sometimes refuses to cooperate), capped by a power outage that lost me an hour of time. Add to that the usual cries for attention from family, and I’m feeling a little . . . ummm, stressed. Still, I have stuff I want to share with you, so let me whip through it:

Chilling look into the near future at what the next school attack might look like

Mike McDaniel, who blogs at Stately McDaniel Manor, has looked at past school shootings, both at home and abroad, and come up with a possible scenario for the next assault on an American school. I don’t doubt that he’s accurately predicting a possible American future unless we take steps now to head it off.

[Read more...]

When it comes to Islam and politics, Leftist stupidity unfortunately has the bully pulpit

People taking how stupid question as a challengeOne of the things that’s frustrating for conservatives is to see that stupidity is ascendant in our culture. And by stupidity I mean something very specific, which is that Leftists routinely use incoherence, ignorance and a complete lack of logic to challenge purely factual statements (or obviously humorous ones), and then congratulate themselves endlessly on their cleverness and the fact that the successfully “pwned” a stupid conservative.

Even worse, these illogical, incorrect arguments become the dominant narrative and are celebrated as wise and worthy. It has the surreal quality of someone being lionized and feted for responding to the statement “It’s daytime because the sun’s out,” by saying “No, it’s just a bright moon because I see cows jumping in the field.” I mean, we’re talking that kind of stupid.

Not unsurprisingly, the top two examples of this kind of stupidity relate to Leftist attempts to analogize modern mainstream Christianity to radical Islam. If you’ve been on social media at all, you’ll know that J. K. Rowling, who really is a stellar children’s writer, tried her hand at religious and political commentary in the wake of a couple of Rupert Murdoch tweets.

As a matter of fact, Murdoch’s tweets makes perfect sense:

Yes, most Muslims are peaceful, although Murdoch’s “maybe most” makes sense when one considers a few facts.  Six to ten percent of Muslims worldwide are extremists who have or will engaged in terrorism.  This means that about 96,000,000 to 160,000,000 of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are extremists are actively engaged in terrorism in their home countries or abroad, or are willing to be actively engaged..  In addition, depending on the country (say, Saudi Arabia versus France versus the U.S.) another roughly 30% to 40% Muslims (that would be 480,000,000 to 640,000,000 Muslims), although not denominated as extremists think that their co-religionists’ terrorism is a good thing.

Murdoch is sensibly saying that, to the extent hundreds of millions of Muslims think a jihadist is the good guy, there’s no telling when, or in what way, they’ll switch from passive to active support.  So, “maybe most” Muslims are peaceful; and maybe not.

The bottom line, which Murdoch understands, is that that there is within Islam a fractionally small, but numerically large, violent contingent of Muslims who not only approve of terrorism in theory, but practice it in fact. And as long as their coreligionists offer them moral support, the West is going to have to engage in long, bloody (very bloody) wars to stop them.  As New Age thinkers are so fond of saying, real change has to come from within.

This is as true of religions as it is of a person’s own psyche.  After all, history has shown us that religious reforms always come from within the religion, not from outside of it.  England and Europe in the 1500s were riven by reformation and counter-reformation.  If Islam is to leave its own Middle Ages, Muslims have to make it happen — and it’s not going to be the terrorists who do it. Egyptian President Sisi is trying to start this process, and Leftists would do better to praise him than to snipe at Murdoch.

Murdoch is also factually correct when he says that jihadists are highly active from the Philippines to Africa to Europe to the US.  Every person who reads the news knows this, but the dominant PC political and social classes in the West don’t want to acknowledge this reality. Which brings us back to where I started, which is the amazingly stupid responses Rowling came up with. These are the things that Leftist idiots (yes, idiots) consider a slam dunk:

I have to ask: What in the world does Rowling mean? Has Murdoch slaughtered journalists, raped and enslaved women, crucified Christians, stoned “adulterers”, hanged homosexuals? And more than that, is Rowling saying that whatever it is that Murdoch did of which she disapproves, his acts arose directly because of his interpretation of Christian Biblical mandates?

Asking those questions reveals that Rowlings tweet is an incoherent mess that can best be interpreted as a meaningless non sequitur. Such is the stupidity of the Left, though, that Rowling was immediately hailed as a debating genius.  This only encouraged her. Rowling therefore doubled down on stupid:

Uh, pardon me, J.K. but would you remind me when the inquisition (which was a perversion of Christian doctrine) took place? [Cricket sounds.]

Never mind. I know you can’t answer that. I can, though.  The Spanish Inquisition’s heyday was in the late 15th century in Spain. Catholics, appalled by the violent perversion of Christ’s teachings, eventually abandoned the Inquisition. There is no more Spanish Inquisition.

The Muslim inquisition, on the other hand, has been ebbing and flowing relentlessly since the 7th century. We are in a period of flow, and stupid tweets such as Rowlings are of no help whatsoever to those Muslims who, like Christians of yore, would like reform.

Oh, and about Jim Bakker.  When his behavior came to light, Christians immediately did what Murdoch asks of Muslims: They didn’t deny his Christianity, thereby disassociating themselves for any responsibility for his wrongdoing; instead, they castigated him for violating core Christian precepts.

“Go away and sin no more!” Christians said to Bakker.  This differs greatly from the Leftist and Muslim response to Jihadists, which translates to “You’re embarrassing me right now, so I’m going to pretend I don’t know you, but meet me for dinner later when no one’s paying attention.”

Rowling rounded out her idiot trilogy with this racist tweet:

As I read that, Rowling is saying we shouldn’t be getting our knickers in a twist, because the important point to remember is that Muslims really get their kicks slaughtering other Muslims. That is correct. But rather than seeing this as further evidence of the problem with Islam, J.K. “The Great Debater” Rowling believes this horrible truth shuts down any critiques of Islam.  I think this last tweet establishes more clearly than anything else could ever have that Rowling’s a racist. Her bottom line is that, as long as the brown-skinned people are killing each other, we don’t need to care.

Sadly, Rowling isn’t the only brainless Leftist with a bully pulpit (and honestly, it’ll be hard ever for me really to admire the whole Harry Potter series again). My Progressive friends have been kvelling about some guy named James O’Brien who, they claim, really shut down someone who dared say Islam was somehow connected to the whole “Allahu Akbar”-“I love ISIS”-“Don’t diss Mohamed”-“Kill the Jews” attacks in Paris last week.

It began when a caller to O’Brien’s show said Muslims owe the world an apology. I’ll agree that the statement went a bit too far.  But the reality is that the opposite is true:  It’s not that Muslims need to apologize (although they should challenge and excoriate their co-religionists).  It’s that Muslims need to stop saying after every “Allahu Akbar” attack that that they, the Muslims, are the real victims (as opposed to the dead and wounded) because of potential hate crimes that never happen.

But back to that alleged O’Brien shut-out:

O’Brien then replies by asking the caller if he had apologised for the attacks, prompting the caller to reply ‘Why would I need to apologise for that’.

It’s at this point that O’Brien really begins to make the caller look a bit silly, and replies by stating that a previous Muslim caller would have no need to apologise either, as the attack occurred when he was in Berkshire and was not committed in the name of Islam.

O’Brien continues to question the man, called Richard, by saying that the failed shoe bomb attack of 2001 was committed by a man called Richard Reid, and by the caller’s logic, he should consequently apologise for atrocities committed in the name of all Richards, irrespective of being entirely different people.

Apparently O’Brien missed school on the days when the teacher instructed students about common denominators. Let me say this again, in words of few syllables: Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims.

To take O’Brien’s puerile argument as a starting point in our common denominator lesson, the name Richard is not a common denominator. Being an army psychiatrist at Fort Hood is not a common denominator. Being two Chechen brothers in Boston is not a common denominator. Living in Sheffield is not a common denominator. Attending flight school is not a common denominator. Having bombs in your undies is not a common denominator.  (Yes, I can do this all day.) Looking at all the bombings, knifings, shootings, crashings, burnings, bombings, etc, over the past few years around the world, the common denominator is . . . drum roll, please . . . ISLAM!

There is a problem in Islam. There is a cancer in the Koran. People from all over the world, when they start taking the Koran too seriously, go rabid. That’s the common denominator and that’s what we need to talk about.

The Left, of course, headed by world chief Leftist Obama, can’t bear to talk about this common denominator. To the extent Obama couldn’t even make himself show up in Paris for what was, admittedly, a spectacle, not a solution, Roger Simon sums up Obama’s and the Left’s problem:

There had to have been a reason for his non-attendance and the bizarre dissing of this event by his administration. I believe it stems from this: There are two words our president seems constitutionally unable to put together — “Islamic” and “terrorism.” For Obama (and, as a sideshow, the zany Howard Dean), these terms are mutually exclusive, an oxymoron. Appearing in Paris, Obama might be put in the unusual position of having to link them, our complaisant press rarely having the nerve to ask such an impertinent question.

For my last example of Leftist stupidity, arising from denying facts and ignoring logic, let me leave the world of Muslim terrorism and head for climate change. Gizmodo, which occasionally has amusing stuff, decided to go off the rails with an attack against Ted Cruz for being “anti-Science.” This is a hot issue because, with the Senate now in Republican hands, Ted Cruz will be overseeing NASA.

During the past six years, NASA has put on the back burner stupid hard science things like space exploration.  (Hard science, you know, is sexist, whether one is talking about hula shirts or the masculinist hegemony demanding accurate answers in math.) Instead, it’s devoted itself to (a) making nice with Islam and (b) panicking about climate change.

Ted Cruz, bright guy that he is, has made it clear that he intends to rip NASA out of its feminist, Islamophilic, climate change routine and force it back into racist, sexist hard science.  The minds at Gizmodo know what this means: Cruz must be destroyed. To that end, the Gizmodo team assembled what they describe Cruz’s embarrassing, laughably dumb quotes about science.  Too bad for the Gizmodo team that everything Cruz said was accurate, rhetorical, or humorous (not that these facts stopped the article from spreading like wildfire through Leftist social media):

  • “‘Net Neutrality’ is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.” - Ted Cruz on net neutrality.  [Bookworm here:  This is a rhetorical argument that goes to Cruz's basic political philosophy, which is limited government.  Nothing dumb about this clever rhetorical take on things.]

 

  • “The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened.”- Ted Cruz on climate change.  [Bookworm here:  This quotation is out of date because, for the past 18 years, there has been no global warming, despite all promises to the contrary.  Ted Cruz isn't dumb.  He's factually accurate. And a word to the dodos at the Washington Post: local weather variations and temperatures are not the same as global warming.  If that was the case, with the record-breaking winter temperatures the last couple of years, we'd be talking about global cooling.  Oh, and while I'm on the subject of global cooling....]

 

  • “You know, back in the ’70s — I remember the ’70s, we were told there was global cooling. And everyone was told global cooling was a really big problem. And then that faded.” - Ted Cruz on climate change [Bookworm here:  Absolutely correct.  Back in the 1970s, people were talking about global cooling.  Climate fanatics are now trying to downplay that, of course, but the fact remains that the heart of the infamous Time Magazine article so many cite was that the earth was indeed cooling.  Once again, nothing dumb about Cruz's statement.  It's factually accurate.]

 

  • “You always have to be worried about something that is considered a so-called scientific theory that fits every scenario. Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they’ll say, well, it’s changing, so it proves our theory.” - Ted Cruz on climate change[Bookworm here:  Again, true, not dumb.  Global warming morphed into climate change because the theory had to adapt when the facts change.  Every time some prediction proves wrong (whether melting glaciers, dead polar bears, or rising waters), the theory flexes to accommodate the failed prediction.  This isn't science, it's faith.  Global warming has turned into a closed-system, non-falsifiable theory.  Score another point for Cruz.]

 

  • “I was disappointed that Bruce Willis was not available to be a fifth witness on the panel. There probably is no doubt that actually Hollywood has done more to focus attention on this issue than perhaps a thousand congressional hearings could do.” - Ted Cruz on space threats.  [Bookworm here:  Again, this is rhetorical.  There is no science in this statement.  It's a joke, guys.  And let me add here that whoever said Leftists have no sense of humor was correct.]

 

  • “I wondered if at some point we were going to see a tall gentleman in a mechanical breathing apparatus come forward and say in a deep voice say, “Mike Lee, I am your father” … and just like in “Star Wars” movies the empire will strike back.” – Ted Cruz during his 21-hour Obamacare speech.  [Bookworm here:  Let me get this right:  Gizmodo is saying that making a pop culture reference to a movie is the same as making dumb scientific statements?  I think Gizmodo is grossly guilty of making stupid pop culture statements.]

 

  • “The authorizing committees are free to set their agency budgets, and that includes NASA.” - Ted Cruz when he tried to cut NASA funding in 2013 (This one is more scary than stupid, since Cruz is now in charge of agency budgets.)  [Bookworm here:  As for me, all I can say is hank God someone who actually understands the difference between fact, humor, science, non-falsifiable belief systems, and pop culture, is finally in charge of at least one facet of our government.  At long last, we can stop using taxpayer dollars so our space program can fund Muslim outreach and continue to salvage a scientific theory that has been proven wrong every stop of the way.]

 

  • “Each day I learn what a scoundrel I am.” - Ted Cruz on his attempts to defund Obamacare [Bookworm here:  Yet another cute rhetorical statement and one, moreover, that has nothing to do with science.  It is interesting, though, to see it in the context of a blog post at a major internet site that has shown itself exceptionally humorless and ignorant in its efforts to tar as a scoundrel a man who has a firm grasp on reality, facts, science, and humor.]

There you have it:  three examples of simply abject stupidity on the part of those who lean Left politically.  I get it.  There are people out there who never learned history, logic, math, humor, or basic data analysis.  What’s so irritating is that they have such enormously wide sway.  It’s as if the world’s elementary school students, complete with ignorance and snark, have managed to take over the planet.  Worse, these powerful people with infantile intelligence are preaching to to the converted.  After all, their audience went to the same schools they did, and these were (and are) schools in which facts and logic made way for propaganda, moral relativism, and political correctness.

A video and a cartoon that succinctly describe jihad’s twin attacks on Free Speech and on Jews

[The video may take a few seconds to load.]

Jews killed over freedom of existence

And as an added bonus, a quotation from Richard Fernandez:

The two suspects cornered in a building are sending a message with their unyielding violence that the political establishment has failed to understand. Multiculturalism is dead. Not because the Europeans have rejected it, but because the Muslims have. A friend of mine asked “is this all our mighty civilization has come to? Candles, flowers and hashtags?”

“For some,” I answered, “that would be bingo, bingo and bingo.”

Apropos the video, I found it through a young Marine friend of mine — not Jewish — who now subscribes to all sorts of Israel lists as he tries to rally his friends to the cause of liberty. Two years ago, he wouldn’t have cared. Now he does. That’s one more person the side of angels.

The Bookworm Beat 1/8/15 — The day after the Charlie Hebdo Massacre edition, and Open Thread

Woman writingIn an earlier post about the Charlie Hebdo massacre, March Hare made this comment:

One reason you may not see pictures of the Mohammed Cartoon or covers from Charlie Hebdo is that the Western Press will not publish close-up crowd pictures. See this article by Allahpundit at Hot Air.

Ah, yes! It’s the old philosophical question: “If a tree falls in a forest and the media refuses to report it, does it make a sound?” Well, the media hopes that’s the case, but I intend to make lots of sounds. I’ll start here, with a link to Charlie Hebdo covers, courtesy of the brave Daily Signal.

Is another great man emerging in Egypt?

Thousands of years ago, a great man, Moses, emerged from Egypt. It’s possible that Egypt has produced another great man. He’s not a prophet by any means, and he still has a long way to go to prove himself, but there’s no doubt that Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is saying and doing some extraordinary things — and the MSM is therefore ignoring him as hard as possible.

The first thing Sisi did was to issue an open challenge to Islam to have an Enlightenment and, along the way, he had a great to say about Islam’s flaws:

We have to think hard about what we are facing—and I have, in fact, addressed this topic a couple of times before. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.

All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened perspective.

I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.

As slaughters from Theo van Gogh to the staff of Charlie Hebdo show, for Sisi to criticize Islam is an act of extraordinary courage. No wonder the media is looking the other way.

Here’s another great thing Sisi is doing — he’s working hard to destroy Hamas:

Egyptian authorities have decided to demolish the entire city of Rafah according to Palestinian Ma’an news agency.

The governor of the North Sinai district, Abd al-Fattah Harhour said at a news conference Wednesday that “a new Rafah city is being established with residential zones appropriate to the nature and traditions of the residents of Rafah.”

More than 800 homes are being demolished and 1,100 families displaced to build the 1 kilometer wide and 13.5-kilometer long buffer zone in North Sinai province.

The government hopes the buffer zone will isolate the militants who say they attack the security forces in retaliation for the government crackdown on Morsi supporters in which at least 1,400 people have been killed in street clashes.

Read more here.

When Israel destroys a single Palestinian home, the media is all over it. When Egypt destroys a whole village . . . crickets. The latter act simply doesn’t support the media’s anti-Israel narrative. Still, whether the media pays attention or not, it’s the right thing to do and I’m glad that Sisi is doing it.

This man has great potential. I hope he fulfills it.

Allahpundit and Mark Steyn make powerful statements about today’s media

Allahpundit watched Mark Steyn speak about the Charlie Hebdo massacre. He agreed with Steyn on one point, and parted ways with him on another. The finished Allahpundit product, a fusion of his and Steyn’s ideas, makes remarkably good points about the world’s media and its refusal to act bravely:

Steyn’s point, amid the “Je suis Charlie” cacophony, is that if more of us really were like Charlie, the Hebdo staff probably wouldn’t be dead. They assumed the entirety of the risk in defying Islamic taboos because their bigger, stronger, better funded brothers and sisters in western media declined to share it by publishing the images themselves. Even now, with blood on the floor in Paris, many of them are still blacking out the cartoons. (The Washington Post is a notable exception.) How do you censor the images those men died defending and then say “Je suis Charlie” with a straight face? And more to the point, how do you do it when those images are at the center of a major international news event? Steyn makes the same point here as Ross Douthat did yesterday. It’s one thing to reject a cartoon of Mohammed on grounds of poor taste or poor skill. That’s an op-ed decision. It’s another thing entirely to refuse to publish it when it’s part of the lead story in every paper in the western-speaking world.

[snip]

All I ask here is honesty about what’s happening. It’s easy to tell someone who works for CNN, “you be the guy to put your life on the line by showing the cartoons.” There’s a reason there are so few Charlies. If self-censorship is the future, though, let’s be honest about why it’s happening. That’s why I part ways with Steyn in his criticism of this image:

He’s right that it’s disgraceful for a western paper to censor Charlie Hebdo cartoons, particularly on the very day that the man in that photo died for his right to display that image. I’m glad, though, that they only pixellated Mohammed and left the Jewish caricature alone. There’s honesty in that: “Sensitivity” would require that both images be blurred, but this isn’t about “sensitivity” and never was. This is about fear and no one fears a group of Hasidim descending on the Daily News offices with AKs. The clearer the double standard is, and it’s awfully clear here, the more you force people to confront it. That’s a small comfort in our censorious age.

I should add here that, if you’re really brave, join the military. If you’re not really brave, become a journalist — but don’t go parading around announcing to the world that you’re incredibly brave because you consistently fall in line with the majority and the cowards. (I do not count myself amongst the majority but must admit that I am a coward.)

Some members of the MSM are beginning to see the light.

I don’t like Bill Maher. I don’t like his crude, reductionaist attacks on conservatives and people of faith. However, I appreciate that he is one of the few brave people in the drive-by media who is willing to state the truth about Islam. One of the truths he’s just stated is that there are so many Muslims in the world that there’s no such thing as a “tiny” minority. A whole hell of a lot of them are totally on board with violent jihad:

Then there’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who is like Bill Maher’s smarter, more corporate, more polished brother. When he’s in pure Leftist mode, he gets it wrong every time. However, when he turns his attention to the scourge of Islam he, like Maher, is brave and gets it right.

Finally, George Packer, another reliable Leftist, is also beginning to realize that there’s a cancer loose in the world, and that cancer isn’t Israel or generic religion or white males or even climate change:

The murders today in Paris are not a result of France’s failure to assimilate two generations of Muslim immigrants from its former colonies. They’re not about French military action against the Islamic State in the Middle East, or the American invasion of Iraq before that. They’re not part of some general wave of nihilistic violence in the economically depressed, socially atomized, morally hollow West—the Paris version of Newtown or Oslo. Least of all should they be “understood” as reactions to disrespect for religion on the part of irresponsible cartoonists.

They are only the latest blows delivered by an ideology that has sought to achieve power through terror for decades. It’s the same ideology that sent Salman Rushdie into hiding for a decade under a death sentence for writing a novel, then killed his Japanese translator and tried to kill his Italian translator and Norwegian publisher. The ideology that murdered three thousand people in the U.S. on September 11, 2001. The one that butchered Theo van Gogh in the streets of Amsterdam, in 2004, for making a film. The one that has brought mass rape and slaughter to the cities and deserts of Syria and Iraq. That massacred a hundred and thirty-two children and thirteen adults in a school in Peshawar last month. That regularly kills so many Nigerians, especially young ones, that hardly anyone pays attention.

Read the rest here.

Of course, with the MSM, it’s not hard to be the smartest or bravest person in the room

While I’m willing to applaud both Goldberg, Packer, and Maher, let’s be honest: Being the smartest or bravest member of the drive-by media means you’re facing a pretty low bar. Indeed, as Jonah Goldberg points out, the bar may be so low it’s comes in underneath sea level.

Just curious, but why is the President’s office tasked with defending Islam?

The purpose of the religion clause in the First Amendment is to keep government out of religion. Both in the past and in the present, government picked winners and losers. Sometimes the losers couldn’t keep their jobs. Sometimes they couldn’t (and, under Islamist rule, still can’t) keep their heads. The Founders thought this was a lousy system and said that promoting or denigrating any one religion could no longer be the government’s responsibility.

So where in the world did Obama get the impression that his job is to promote Islam? (Yeah, of course I know that’s rhetorical a rhetorical question.  Obama couldn’t give a flying whatsit about the Constitution.)

Anyway, Ben Shapiro has done a public service by counting up the number of times the Obama administration has felt it incumbent upon itself to act as Islam’s apologist.

These posters seem appropriate here:

Obama says the future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet

Obama will stand with Islam

USA Today and Anjem Choudary performed a public service

There has apparently been some debate about USA Today’s wisdom in giving Anjem Choudary space on its pages to give his opinion about the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

I think it was a brilliant idea. If Choudary had been another CAIR apologist, explaining why Islam is a freedom-fighting, liberty-loving religion of peace, so you can just ignore the growing pile of dead bodies in its wake, I would have been angry. As it is, Choudary rips away the apologetics and, in an American paper, proudly explains what Islam is:

Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.

Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”

However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.

Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred.

With the gauzy CAIR, White House, MSM, academia, and Hollywood filter stripped away, Choudary’s straightforward explication of Islam (“Acknowledge that we’re your rulers or die”) is the kind of actual news that Americans badly need.

Bill Donohoe is half right, but entirely wrong

Bill Donohoe, President of the Catholic League, found himself in hot water for sympathizing with the Muslims after the Charlie Hebdo massacre:

While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not. Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran. What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them.

Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.

Donohoe is right that religious people aren’t out of line to get angry when their sacred ideas and images are despoiled by detractors or other people who don’t feel good will towards the faith or the faithful. I mean, Christians got plenty angry — and rightfully so — with Serrano’s (in)famous “Piss Christ.”

Where Donohoe has gone off the rails, and proven himself to be as much an intellectual totalitarian as the jihadists (see, e.g., Choudary, above) themselves, is to argue that people who poke fun at, or are mean about, religion deserve to die. Free speech means the right to challenge, insult, and laugh at people without being subject to cold-blooded murder or state-sanctioned execution. A civilized man and a civilized culture would never argue that the penalty for religious ridicule or insult should be death or, as is the case in Saudi Arabia, 1,000 lashes. Presumably Donohoe would approve of that punishment too.

Update on the GOP plans to derail amnesty

The House currently has two bills before it aimed at derailing amnesty. I can’t help but think that, with Boehner back in the Speaker’s chair, the only things that are going to get derailed are those two bills.

Feminists and the KKK — separated at birth?

Brendan O’Neill has noticed something very, very peculiar: Today’s feminists, especially on college campuses, are displaying exactly the same attitude towards rape as the KKK did.

Wars on rape have been declared before, and often for deeply reactionary reasons, having the effect of harming society rather than helping women. Consider the ‘war on rape’ declared in America’s Deep South in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when the KKK and other racists likewise declared zero tolerance of rape – rape committed by black men, that is – and signalled their determination to wipe out this ‘ultimate transgression’. There was little positive in that crusade. And here are five ways in which today’s non-racist feministic ‘war on rape’ echoes the lynch-mob logic of yesteryear’s racist ‘war on rape’.

1) Always believe the accuser

The rallying cry of today’s apparently liberal crusaders against rape is: ‘Believe.’ They always believe the accuser. To doubt the accuser is to risk being branded a rape apologist. Campaign groups with names like We Believe You and I Believe You, It’s Not Your Fault speak to the readiness of campaigners to accept every accusation of rape as good coin. Even in the wake of the Rolling Stone scandal, where an allegation of gang rape at the University of Virginia has been exposed as a tissue of lies, a writer for the Washington Post insisted we must ‘automatically believe rape allegations’, because ‘incredulity hurts victims’. From Dylan Farrow’s accusations against Woody Allen to various women’s accusations against Bill Cosby, the cry ‘I believe!’ has rung out, as activists have rushed to declare, without the benefit of a court case, that these women were raped.

Read the whole thing here. It will be worth your time.

This is exactly what I want to say about Pope Francis

Writing at First Things, Maureen Mullarkey voices precisely my feelings about Pope Francis.

Yet another act of internet piracy

The New York Times is still good for some things. It has a very informative article about a new form of hacking: the entire computer gets taken hostage.

Are these the real stories behind Don McLean’s American Pie

The Bookworm Beat (10/17/14) — aka the Friday fish-wrap edition (and Open Thread)

Woman writingBefore I dive into my round-up, I wanted to discuss with you a poster that a very liberal friend of mine put up on Facebook. It’s the Leftist version of various posters you’ve seen here discussing Leftist logic (e.g., as Dixon Diaz says, “A liberal is someone who lives in a gated community but says that a border fence won’t work,” or “A liberal is someone who thinks that Fox news lies, but Obama doesn’t.”).  The Leftist version of this logic comparison involves voter ID and gun purchases:

Comparing voter ID and gun shows

Superficially, the comparison makes sense. I mean, ID is ID after all. Why should it be required in one place and not in another? Only a second’s thought, though, makes it clear that this is a bit of prestidigitation, meant to make us look in the wrong direction.

What we should be looking at is the fundamental right we’re trying to protect.  In the case of voting, the fundamental right is the right to cast a vote that is not canceled out by an invalid vote from someone who, as a matter of law, cannot vote, whether because that person is actually dead, or is an illegal alien, or is a felon, or just hasn’t bothered to register.  Demanding identification protects the integrity and weight of my legal vote.

The opposite is true for the requirement that one must show identification at a gun show.  The right to bear arms is the fundamental right at issue.  Putting government regulations between an individual and a gun is a burden on the exercise of that right.  This is not to say that the state may not place that burden, but the state had better  have a damn good reason for doing so.

So — is anyone out there skilled enough to reduce my argument to a poster that will counter the poster above?  For the life of me, I cannot figure out an easily digestible way to counter a fallacious, but superficially appealing, argument.

Guns save lives

It seems appropriate after discussing the fundamental right to bear arms to lead off with a news report about an Army vet, carrying a licensed gun, who used his gun to save both his girlfriend and himself from a frightening attack by a deranged individual. Here’s the takeaway quotation:

“I firmly believe that in order to maintain a free society, people need to take personal safety into their own hands,” he said. “You should walk around ready and able to protect yourself and others in your community.”

Modern Islam flows from Saudi Arabia and Iran, and both are barbaric

Daniel Greenfield pulls no punches in “The Savage Lands of Islam.” With a focus on Saudi Arabia (along with nods to Iran) he explains that Islam, as practiced in the countries that are its heartlands, is an utterly barbaric religion that debases human beings. He also warns that Islam exists, rather like a parasite, to take over other countries and reduce them to precisely the same debased status. Or as I once said:

Why is militant Islam Like Ebola

England continues voluntarily to plunge itself into the moral abyss

By a vote of 60 to 1, the student union at Goldsmiths College in London voted to discontinue all Holocaust commemorations. The reasons given were grotesque, starting with that given by the “education officer,” a gal named Sarah El-Alfy, which I read as an Arab name. According to her, Holocaust commemorations are “Eurocentric” and “colonialist.” Sadly, El-Alfy sounds marginally intelligent compared to students who opined that “The motion would force people to remember things they may not want to remember,” while another said that because the Union was (apparently appropriately) anti-Zionist, commemorating the Holocaust was impossible.

Honestly, I think the only time in modern history that a once civilized country so swiftly and completely debased itself was Germany, in the years between the end of WWI and the start of WWII. And, to England’s shame, Germany at least had the “excuse” of having been utterly destroyed, socially and economically, by having lost WWI. England’s slide into this abyss has no excuse, following as it does the fat years that Margaret Thatcher introduced and that continued through the 1990s.

England’s not alone: all of Europe is just as immoral

England didn’t sink into this moral black hole alone. All of Europe is there (with American Democrats tugging anxiously at the leash, desperate to plunge into the hole themselves).

How do we know this? Because Europe, England included, has decided to recognize the Palestinian state, despite the fact that there’s nothing state-like about the West Bank.  Well, there’s nothing state-like unless you redefine state to mean “a dysfunctional terrorist organization, with no infrastructure, no rights for women, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, or gays, and that has no ability to generate revenue but simply funds itself with hand-outs from the international community, most of which end up lining the pockets of those clinging with tyrannical fervor to ‘leadership’ positions.”

And if that sentence was too packed to make sense, you can and should read Caroline Glick on Europe’s disgraceful move to recognize a Palestinian State.

When it comes to moral black holes, let’s not forget The New York Times

As part of the Left’s desperate effort to emulate Europe’s moral abasement, the New York Times is leading tours to Iran, no Israelis allowed, and all Jews and homosexuals seriously discouraged from coming along:

The New York Times is offering a pricey, 13-day excursion to the “once-forbidden land of Iran,” one of a series of its Times Journeys tours. However, if you’re an Israeli, joining the “Tales of Persia,” trip, “once-forbidden,” is still forbidden, and letting anyone know you’re Jewish, or gay, isn’t particularly recommended, either, a representative told The Algemeiner on Monday.

How very 1938 of the Times. Can’t you just see exactly the same tour being given to Nazi Germany by the Progressives at the Times, all of whom would be overflowing with admiration for a powerful state that gives universal healthcare, discourages smoking, and designs fuel-efficient cars?

Did you know Hitler was a meth head?

This may be old news to some of you (indeed, I remember vaguely reading it somewhere), but it’s still a shock to read about the scope of Hitler’s doctor-approved drug abuse:

According to a 47-page wartime dossier compiled by American Military Intelligence, the Fuhrer was a famous hypochondriac and took over 74 different medications, including methamphetamines.

[snip]

He was initially prescribed a drug called Mutaflor in order to relieve the pain of his stomach cramps.

He was then prescribed Brom-Nervacit, a barbiturate, Eukodal, a morphine-based sedative, bulls’ semen to boost his testosterone, stimulants Coramine and Cardiazol, and Pervitin, an ‘alertness pill’ made with crystal meth-amphetamine.

One has to wonder how much all these drugs contributed to the paranoia and monamania that killed 40 million people, including 6 million Jews, in just six years.

No wonder conservatives are feeling apocalyptic….

The last couple of days have seen several conservative writers writing gloomy posts about America’s and the world’s slide into chaos, all under Obama’s aegis.

Roger L. Simon asks “Can It Possibly Get Any Worse?

Stephen F. Hayes looks at the “Failure Upon Failure” of the Obama presidency. In theory, the article should make for satisfying reading for those of us who figured Obama out on the first day but it’s actually just terribly depressing, because Obama’s failure is America’s failure.

Ed Driscoll notes that the Left is getting downhearted too, in “The ‘Bam Who Fell To Earth.

America’s campuses go full kangaroo court

Heather MacDonald is pleased about what she sees as neo-Victorianism on college campuses, by which she means the fact that colleges are starting to turn away from the hook-up culture and obsession with perverse sex that has characterized them for so many years. As the mother of a girl heading off to college one of these days, I’m delighted to learn that the sex saturated culture is finally drying up. However, as the mother of a boy who will also be heading off to college one of these days, I’m distressed that the change is coming about, not by demonizing the casual and perverse sex culture, but simply by demonizing boys and men.

As long as men leave the toilet seat up, why marry?

There must be as many reasons for the decline in marriage as their are non-married people. A female University of Washington professor thinks the decline in marriage is a good thing because men just aren’t very nice people to marry.

In keeping with her attack on men, I’d like pick up on a theme I touched upon years ago, when I first started blogging. Looking at the people I know, the couples I know, and the blogs I’ve read, I’ve concluded that liberal and conservative men are very different in their approach to women.

Liberal men applaud women in the abstract — calling them equal or superior, bowing before their right to do anything they damn well please, and feeling the need to apologize all the time for being men. Given all this, perhaps it’s not surprising that, except for the sex part, liberal men don’t seem to like actual women very much. If you constantly have to abase yourself before someone, it’s kind of going to kill the fun. Certainly, in my world, the harder Left men are politically, the meaner they are to the real women in their real lives.

Conversely, while conservative men believe in equity feminism (equal pay for equal work, equal access to opportunities on a level playing field), they view women as different from them and special in their own way. I’ve never seen a respectable conservative male blogger denigrate women, just as I’ve never seen one pretending there’s no difference, that women are superior, or that all men must perpetually apologize for erroneous opinions that men in past generations held about women. Conservative men have a better handle on the fact that, in a pre-industrial, pre-scientific era (that is, everything before about 1850), there was no way in Hell to pretend that men and women were fundamentally equal. Conservative men also seem not just to love the women in their lives, but truly to respect them.

So it seems to me that, amongst the Left, which is still driving the culture, marriage is less popular because feminism has made it reasonable for men to dislike women, and therefore to treat them disrespectfully, which in turn leads women to dislike men.

Very sad.

Andrew Klavan gives the American media a well-deserved shellacking

Still, there is beauty….

Adilyn Malcolm describes herself as follows:

Hi, I’m Adi! I’m 11 years old and I love dubstep! I have NEVER taken a dance class in my life………I learned from watching (YouTube) videos!! I have been dancing for about 6 months. I am actually a motocross racer but when I’m not on my bike, this is the next best thing! I hope you enjoy my videos. Thanks for watching!

Although the following is only her second video, she already has 2,421 subscribers and 2,005,997 views. You’ll see why she got so popular so fast when you watch her dance:

And a few pictures in lieu of thousands more words

A time saver for tall people

All I'm saying is Zombie movie

And, from Sadie (who provided the caption):

President Shiva

Bill Maher again speaks out on Islam: “Liberal western culture is not just different; it’s better.”

Ignore the foul language and ignore the generalized attacks on Christians and Christianity. Instead, appreciate the fact that a famous media figure who openly hates all religions is willing to speak out and say that radical Islam is not like all the other religions he disrespects: it’s much, much worse because of its violent intolerance and its yearning for total conquest. I’m no Maher fan, but credit must be given where credit is due: He’s brave, since he puts his life at risk by saying these things; he’s willing to take on Obama’s religious pronouncements; he recognizes the fundamental virtue of Free Speech in America; and he refuses to deal in moral relativism. Good, very good, for him!

You’ll be surprised what war we need to wage next and where we need to wage it

Obama For WarThinking about the fact that Peace Prize Obama is taking us to war again, what popped into my mind was “Don’t bother; we’ve already lost.”  I know that’s an awful thing to say, but bear with me, as I explain why.  And, true to my post caption, I’ll also explain what I think our war strategy has to be if we have any hope of winning against a violent, implacable enemy that willingly carries a hot grudge for centuries.

As I often do, let me start with an anecdote to put my thoughts in context.  It all started when Mr. Bookworm asked me to watch an interview that Jon Stewart did with Gen. Tony Zinni (ret.), who’s shilling his new book. Mr. Bookworm was beyond thrilled to hear Zinni say that George Bush didn’t know is Arab from a Persian or his Shia from a Sunni when he started the war.  I wasn’t as excited.  I’ve heard Zinni make such comments before, and I think they’re for effect.

I have no doubt but that Bush and his crew knew the difference between Persian and Arab and Sunni and Shia. They just thought that they could paper these differences over by toppling dictators and plunking a boat load of democracy on top of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Bush administration’s naiveté didn’t lie in not knowing the differences, which is a clinical, academic sort of knowledge.  Their failure was their inability to understand that, just as Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, Judeo-Christian cultures are from Earth and hardcore Islamist cultures (no matter whether they’re Arab, Persian, Shia, or Sunni) are from the Star War’s Death Star, with a mad dash of Star Trek Klingon culture, the only difference being that the Islamists are even less nice than those dark, imaginary places.

If you don’t have centuries to wait for a death-centric culture such as the Islamic culture to mellow, and you want to turn it around really quickly, you have only one option: completely destroy its cities, as the Allies did to both Japan and Germany at the end of WWII.

What you cannot do, as Bush’s wars definitively proved, is destroy the upper level structure and hope for trickle down democracy carried on the backs of soldiers armed with both guns and lollipops. Democracy has to start from the ground up, and the ground must first be cleared and plowed over for Democracy to take root. Even under those optimum circumstances, you have to tend your crop for 50 or 60 years, rather than stop the moment a few of freedom’s little seedlings start poking their heads above the soil. To continue with my agricultural metaphor, if Iraq and Afghanistan were farms, what we did was tantamount to killing the farmer, burning a few of his crops, ripping out some others, scattering a handful of seeds over parched, hard ground, and then walking away blithely confident that a lush, bountiful harvest would suddenly appear.

Recognizing that the problem lies with the fundamental clash between Islam and the West allows us to get away from the statist habit of claiming that Bush’s two wars are the reason that radical Islam is suddenly in everyone’s face. Both Stewart and Zinni were in agreement that this was so, but they’re wrong, and speaking out of profound historical ignorance. If you pull back from America’s hot war between 2003 to 2013, though, you realize that radical Islam was already and always in everyone’s face.

From the moment Mohamed’s little tribe burst out of the Arabian desert, its focus was on conquest.  This aggressive trait was a necessity, because the faith’s stifling strictures mean that its adherents are virtually prohibited from doing anything that creates wealth.  The only way that they can bring wealth into their country is through conquest, slavery, and taxes on those who are neither Muslims nor slaves. For that reason, Islam’s swift, massive expansion (as seen in the video below), did not occur organically or through proselytizing. It happened at the point of a sword.

In this context, one can see that the 260 years of relative Islamic quiescence between 1683 and Israel’s creation wasn’t a permanent peace. For Islam, the problem was that the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, by powering Western engines, became too strong for Islam, which was primarily represented by the corrupt Ottomans and which was hopelessly mired in the Middle Ages.

During the 20th century, those Muslims who still dreamed of a caliphate realized that they had to re-group and they did, in the most toxic way possible. With a helpful assist from the West’s desperate need for oil thought to exist only under Muslim sands, Arab Nationalism, Islamism (with funding from Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich nations), and antisemitism blossomed all over the Muslim world.

After Israel’s creation, this toxicity was seen at its most obvious in the Palestinian’s battle against Israel.  Many people assumed that, because Israel was the only visible front in the war, that Israel was the cause of Islam’s anti-Western anger.  A longer view, of course, makes clear that Israel was just another front in a long war. One proof of this fact is that, with America having engaged in active warfare with Islamic nations, the same uninformed people tell us that these Bush-led wars are the reason for Islam’s anti-Western anger.  The fact is, though, that Islamic’s anger against everyone is hard-wired.

Having had an intellectual and (thanks to oil) financial resurgence, the Islamists spent the latter part of the 20th century, repeatedly poking and prodding the West to determine whether it was safe for radical Islamists to resume all-out warfare. Long before Bush went to war we had Bobby Kennedy’s 1968 assassination (by a violently anti-Zionist Christian Palestinian); the 1972 attack at the Munich Olympics (ostensibly aimed at Israel, but also a test of Western will, which the West failed); the 1976 hijacking that led to the raid at Entebbe (another test of Western will, which the West promptly failed); the 1979 Iranian revolution and hostage crisis, which Carter fumbled and which led to massive new funding and organization for radical Islam; Anwar Sadat’s 1981 assassination at the hand of radical Islamists; the 1981 attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II by a Muslim Turk trained by Palestinians; the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut; the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the multiple US embassy bombings in 1998; the 2000 USS Cole bombing; and, of course, the culmination of all the preceding Islamic efforts: The September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (and, had things gone right, the Capitol), resulting in the loss of 2,996 people, mostly Americans.

It took decades of ever-increasing provocation (increasing in both frequency and intensity) before America finally sat up and took notice of the Islamists’ fervent desire to engage us and destroy us in open warfare. To switch from my earlier agricultural metaphor to an elephant one, we were the sleeping elephant, and Islam was the sharp-toothed mouse that keep running up, biting our legs, and running away. We were irritated, but fundamentally unconcerned. It was only when that mouse stuffed a bomb up our trunk that we realized we had to act.

And when we acted, we acted wrong. We failed to realize that we were not in a war with individual tyrants or individual nations but, instead, had to do battle with an entire world view, one that has existed virtually unchanged since the 7th century. The ideology’s diffusion doesn’t mean that America shouldn’t or couldn’t invade the territories in which the most ardent practitioners of this world view have their strongholds. To the extent Islamists want conventional war, we should give them a snootful of conventional war. But because the ideology extends far beyond a small nation here or a big city there, there are two other things a Western nation must do if it has any hope of prevailing against the Islamists. It must (1) Attack the radical Islamist ideology and (2) reinforce the virtues and values of our own Western culture and our American nation.

Starting with George Bush, we neither attacked radical Islam nor celebrated America. At the White House level, both of our Presidents have gone out of their way to praise Islam. It’s a religion of peace, they’ve said. Most Muslims are good, they’ve said (which is true). We’re just going after a very narrow stratum of bad people who have perverted a wonderful, loving faith, they’ve said.

The only reason Obama has been more irritating in saying this than Bush was is because, Bush limited himself to talking about the word “Islam means peace” and praising the world’s non-militant Muslims. By contrast, Obama has been apologizing non-stop to the worst kind of Islamists since his first day in office; he’s been incredibly hostile to Israel, our ally in this long war; he consistently sided with the radical Muslim Brotherhood, rather than more reformist movements, during the Arab spring; and, in this last go-round, he’s taken upon himself the role of true apologist for the religion, carefully explaining to those who are breathing new life into Mohamed’s explicit instructions that they’re doing it wrong, and thereby inconveniencing him.

The Left wing establishment — in politics, in the media, in education, in Hollywood — has been delighted to follow both presidents’ lead when it comes to whitewashing Islam. Newspaper articles keep writing stories about men and women who, for reasons no one can ever seem to understand, suddenly start killing people while hollering “Allahu Akbar.” TV shows and movies have added to their repertoire of stock characters (e.g., black judges and police captains, Asian nerds, and women’s gay best friends) a new stock character: the saint-like Muslim who is wrongly maligned by racists with tea bags pinned to their lapels.

In schools, where facts sometimes have to be acknowledged, educators assure dewy-eyed children, adolescents, and young adults that, to the extent Muslims keeping doing things like blowing up people, planes, and buildings, they’ve done so only because we’ve baited them beyond bearing by using their oil. Protests about misogyny and homophobia have been brushed aside as quaint cultural artifacts that must be respected on multicultural grounds. This whitewashing job probably could have gone on forever if the Islamic State hadn’t gotten the bright idea of boasting about beheadings all over social media.

For thirteen (or thirty, or seventy) long years, America has failed utterly to state the stark truth: In the Quran, the Prophet Mohamed explicitly demands world domination, the slaughter of the Jews, the subordination of Christians, the physical and mental imprisonment of women, pedophilia against young girls, the death of gays, the death of apostates, and all the other anti-Western, anti-Enlightenment practices that repulse any non-Muslim who is able to see around the lies and obfuscations emanating from the White House, the political class, the entertainment world, and the education establishment.

What may be even worse than our refusal to acknowledge the monstrous theme of conquest running through Islamic doctrine and history, is a political, cultural, and educational class’s refusal to reinforce the worthiness of our own culture. Bush, bless his heart, did (and does) believe in American exceptionalism but, not only was he inarticulate on the subject (as was Romney), he was shouted down and drowned out by the media, by Hollywood, by America’s educational institutions, and by roughly half of our political class. President Obama, of course, holds no brief for America.

Since 2001, when al Qaeda, by bombing the Twin Towers, finally forced ordinary Americans to see that there’s a war going on, the loudest voices in America have alternately been accusing us of the worst kind of “isms,” while apologizing for who and what we are. A toxic combination of political correctness, multiculturalism, institutional feminism, the gay mafia, the La Raza crowd, the climate change hysterics, and all of the other usual suspects ranging from the Communist party to the Democrat party, resulted in our being subjected to a decade’s worth of anti-American venom spread far and wide.

Our children, who live in a world of public schools, TV shows, and movies (and, for these youngsters who fancy themselves to be budding intellectuals, heavily Left/Democrat newspapers and magazines such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, etc.), have been told relentlessly that Americans are misogynistic, patriarchal, racist, fanatically Christian, imperialist, and homophobic, and that we steal our nation’s vast wealth from poor people at home and abroad, transferring wealth solely to a cadre of angry, rich, white men who clutch Bibles in one hand and guns (complete with bullets labeled “this one’s for a black person”) in the other. Reality never intrudes into this institutionalized self-loathing.

The reality is that women are thriving in America, at men’s expense. In the Muslim world, they would be lucky if they were merely 2nd or 3rd class citizens. In a sharia-compliant country, women aren’t citizens at all; they are chattel, and poorly treated chattel at that.

The reality is that America is the least racist country in the world (with Israel probably following a close second). There will always be bad apples, but anyone who has ever stepped foot out of America knows that all other nations, regardless of color, routinely practice both social and institutional racism. The same is true of the Islamic world. While it likes to tout its color-blinded when compared to the 1950s Jim Crow south, it’s worth noting that the northern Sudanese Muslims (light brown), after purging their nation of Christians, then engaged in genocidal attacks against southern Sudanese Muslims (dark brown). Also, it’s worth noting that the confluence of the race hustlers and the feminists is abortion. Honest abortion supporters will admit that encouraging mass abortion in 2014 has the same intended purpose it did in 1914: to wipe out blacks and other “undesirables.

The reality is that, after more than a thousand years of often painful and destructive doctrinal refinement, the Western Judeo-Christian tradition ended slavery, emancipated women, freed children from the factory, and simultaneously elevated man’s highest impulses while taming his basest ones.

The reality is that, beginning with WWI and continuing through to the present day, America has never engaged in a true Imperial war, one that sees her invade a country, subordinate its people, and redirect its wealth to American coffers. Instead, America’s so-called “imperialism” consists of being the country that practically every Third World poor person wishes he could call home, and of having a culture that most young people around the world want to emulate. ISIS is the face of Muslim imperialism.

And lastly, the reality is that, while Americans have been cautious about jettisoning the definition of marriage that has been in place since time immemorial (a definition that harmonizes with the biological imperative of procreation) and while most Americans believe that the First Amendment shouldn’t force individuals to lend their labors to a marriage ceremony that clashes with their most closely held beliefs, Americans since the Stonewall riots have made a complete turnaround when it comes to accepting the entirety of the LGBTQ spectrum. While there will always be biased individuals and, sadly, individuals who bring violence to their bias, people across the sexual spectrum have exceptional freedom and respect in America, even as ordinary Americans engage in the delicate balancing act of respecting faith too. In Muslim countries, homosexuals are first lashed, then hanged.

America is a truly great and wonderful country. It’s not a perfect country, because humans are imperfect, but looking back through time and around the world, our nation is one of which we should all be rightfully proud. It’s beautiful, its people are friendly and hard-working, it still hews (at least in the heartlands) to a Judeo-Christian morality that elevates the individual in all ways, it’s rich at every level — in its land, in its many cultures, in its energy and innovation, and its people’s fundamental decency.

It’s a tragic — possibly a suicidal one — that for the last thirteen years, the loudest voices in America have worked hard to denigrate and hide her wonders, rather than celebrating and cultivating them. The result is that, as we stare at yet another war, the American people have been taught three things that ensure defeat:

1. America is a lousy country, not worth defending.
2. Islam is a religion of peace that has reared up only because lousy Israel and lousy America keep getting in its face.
3. The bad actors who pop up with increasing regularity and ferocity are not really Muslim.
4. In the absence of actual bad Muslims or Islamic nations, our military is reduced to fighting scattered and fragmented bad actors, and is incapable of doing so — and anyway, why should it do so? We Americans aren’t worthy.

It is our mindset thirteen years after 9/11 that had me wanting to name this post “Don’t Bother; We’ve Already Lost.”  A nation that loves its enemy and hates itself cannot win a war.

But maybe we haven’t lost just quite yet.  Maybe, just maybe, it’s true that where there’s life there’s hope.  And maybe we can change our political, social, entertainment, and education culture.

I know that, if it were up to me, I would trumpet America’s wonders to the sky. I would also make sure everyone knows of Islam’s myriad and quite dreadful failures, while simultaneously cultivating and elevating those who seek to reform Islam. (And yes, I know it’s a tough road to hoe, given Muhammad’s strictures, but it needs to be done.) In other words, I would fight a war of hearts and minds at home, rather than in foreign fields, populated by simple farmers steeped in Islamism. Only after winning, or at least beginning, this absolutely necessary war at home would I engage in conventional warfare — and, when I did, I’d listen to the military because, unlike a civilian constitutional law professor and community organizer, the military knows its capabilities best.

 

The Bookworm Beat (9/21/14) — quick links before Monday hits, and Open Thread

Woman writingI can feel the demands of Monday creeping up already, so I thought I’d rush through a few things that people (mostly the wonderful Earl Aagaard) were kind enough to send me. Here goes:

Why do American Muslims love Obama, while non-American Muslims hate him?

Here’s a conundrum: Obama is hugely popular with American Muslims, but deeply disliked by Muslim’s in the Middle East. What gives? Richard Fernandez offers a very credible explanation.

Why do we keep inviting our executioner into America?

Here’s how it works: Muslims make their own countries unlivable, slaughtering each other by the hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands. Whichever is on the losing side of a given country’s religious civil war (either Shia or Sunni) looks understandably pathetic, especially because so many of the victims are children.

American Christians, who are very good people, feel a moral obligation to reach out to the pathetic losers in a given country’s civil war. Part of this outreach includes inviting these poor, victimized Muslims into America. What the Christians don’t realize is that there’s a pecking order in the Muslim world. When you’ve established your sect’s dominance in a territory, the next in line to dominate are the Christians.

Imam Obama wrong

Obama is a lousy president. He’s also a lousy Imam. When he insisted that Islam is inconsistent with ISIS, he was flat-out incorrect in interpreting Islamic doctrine.

Study finds gross and pervasive antisemitism at UCLA

It seems as if every American university’s Near East Studies department has been co-opted by Leftists and Islamists whose primary goal is to institutionalize anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiment. UCLA is just the latest on the list.

I wish there was a way for us taxpayers to opt out of funding these dreadful institutions of lower education. Oh, wait! There is a way. We could stop electing Democrats and Republicans, and start electing conservatives.

Raquel Welch — Are you ready to die?

iOwnTheWorld.com notices that Ezekiel Emanuel’s pronouncement that American’s should be patriotic and die at 75 might affect at least one famous person who doesn’t look at all ready for the grave.

If only we could get Emanuel, who’s basically Jack Kevorkian with political power, to absorb some of the Right’s deep humanism on this subject. I recommend starting with Mike McDaniel’s post.

Who’s going to be at fault if Republicans don’t win the Senate?

Laura Ingraham knows who’s going to be a fault if Republicans are unable to win the Senate despite Obama’s other and Democrats’ deep unpopularity. Actually, we all know — it’s the damn Republican establishment that’s at fault, because it manifestly cares most about friends in Washington and about cheap labor to make the Chamber of Commerce types happy . . . never mind the rest of Americans who watch the benefits of a weak recovery go primarily to immigrants, many of them here illegally.

I elaborate on this point at the Watcher’s Council forum, as do several Council members and honored guests.  All The Right Snark also has a pretty good idea about what’s wrong.

Moonbats on parade

The climate changistas had their today, and the pictures make you want to laugh until you realize how these lunatics have gained almost complete control over the Western world’s political bodies.

Yes, terrorism is a default setting

From its inception at the beginning of the 7th century until 1683, when the Ottoman Turks were stopped at the Gates of Vienna, Islam functioned through terrorism. After this thousand-year run, Islam spent 290 years somewhat dormant.  It caused local problems (resulting in Churchill’s famous set-down of the religion, a set-down now illegal in England), but it stopped aiming at the West’s heard.

Islam’s enforced passivity changed in the 1970s, when violent Islam became resurgent (think: PLO, followed by Iran). That’s why, when the Milt Rosenberg show tackled the question of whether terrorist mass murder is now the default setting for radical Islam, my answer has to be “yes.” Barring that 290 year hiatus, mass terrorism was a system that worked very effectively for the Muslims for about 1,000 years.

Calvin & Hobbes shows that Common Core’s been around for a while now

Just go and enjoy!

The problem when people with secrets make the rules

You gotta love this one: After two-year-old emails embarrassed the Los Angeles School Board, the Board decided that, rather than clean up its act, it would simply order that, henceforth, emails are to get destroyed after one year. Apparently the school board is a big fan of the IRS.

Africa is a truly benighted continent

I’m sorry, but there’s some curse over Africa. It’s not just that Ebola is the latest disaster to hit that continent. It’s that in the uproar, the Africans are starting to kill each other as fast as the Ebola does.

When you add to this newest plague the other plagues that blight Africa — chronic malaria, AIDS, droughts, famines, tribal wars, Muslim v. Christian wars, Muslim v. Muslim wars, black v. white wars, Communist v. ordinary people wars, madmen wars, etc. — you have to believe that long ago, when early man first emerged from the jungle in Africa, he must have done something so dreadful that God laid a curse on the land to last in perpetuity.

Americans don’t force religion on people

I don’t have a problem with the Pledge of Allegiance, even though it mentions the dreaded word “God.” I have a problem with atheists trying to erase God from public life, which is not something the Founders envisioned. However, I, like Greg at Rhymes With Right, also have a problem with schools trying to bully atheist children who opt to sit quietly and unobtrusively during the pledge.

I know I posted this one before, but it deserves posting again.

I know I posted this one before, but it deserves posting again.

When it comes to free speech, Britain has embraced Big Brother

Frankly, whether Scotland goes or Scotland stays, once-Great Britain is dead. It’s death was a slow-mo, stupidity-driven suicide:

Orwell understood:

Orwell on an unfree society's hatred for the truth

Does the apparently senile Jimmy Carter know anything about Islam?

Islam is premised upon Jihad — war.  It’s binary.  There’s either war against unbelievers or complete subordination to Allah.  What religion is Carter — an increasingly virulent anti-Semite who also seems to be declining quickly into a revolting old age — talking about?

For a more accurate view of Islam as Mohamed envisioned his faith, check out the Islamist fate dealt to Steven Sotloff, may he rest in peace:

P.S. Let me say that I know there are Muslims who do believe in peace, equality, etc., and God bless ‘em. They should be encouraged in their beliefs, and encouraged to start a reformation movement in their faith. I’m just saying that these “Enlightenment Muslims” (for want of a better term) are drawing those ideas from a source other than their religion.

Obama’s awful statement about James Foley was even worse than I predicted

Arrogant ObamaIn my post about James Foley’s execution at ISIS’s hands, I made some predictions about Obama’s eventual statement.  Let’s see how my prediction matches with reality.  First, my prediction:

Obama will eventually issue a bland, fairly affect-free statement, either through a spokesman or through a brief appearance on the White House lawn (no questions from the press, please). In an anodyne tone, he’ll say how sad he and the American people are at the news. He’ll promise to issue strongly worded condemnations of the killers. He’ll assure us that the killers are aberrant and have nothing to do with the good Muslims around the world. (God forbid he castigates the bad Muslims who rejoice under such names as ISIS, al Qaeda, al Shabaab, Boko Haram, Hamas, etc.). Lastly, Obama will promise an investigation along with the rote words that “we’ll bring these killers to justice.” And then it will be over. That will be it.

Looking at Obama’s actual statement, it seems that I underestimated the man — and not in a good way. His statement was, if possible, worse than anything I imagined.

While I predicted that Obama would express sadness on his own behalf and on behalf of the American people, it turns out that Obama, still a legend in his own mind, felt called upon to speak on behalf of the entire world:

Today, the entire world is appalled by the brutal murder of Jim Foley by the terrorist group ISIL.

[snip]

Jim was taken from us in an act of violence that shocked the conscience of the entire world.

[snip]

The world is shaped by people like Jim Foley and the overwhelming majority of humanity who are appalled by those who killed him.

I don’t want to be too pedantic, but I do feel it’s incumbent upon me to point out that large swaths of the Muslim world aren’t appalled at all by “Jim’s” death but are, instead, quite pleased. (And am I the only one who finds bizarre Obama’s faux familiarity with a man he never met, who died with a dignity that at least deserves the respect of his full name?)

Anywhere that there is radical Islamism and/or anti-Americanism you will find people celebrating the slaughter. Perhaps Obama has forgotten the spectacle of Gazans handing out candy when Americans died on 9/11 or of the 2000 Ramallah lynching that saw Muslims joyfully bathing their hands in the blood of murdered Israelis soldiers:

Ramallah lynching

So, no, Mr. President, the entire world is not “appalled,” and a big part of America’s problem lies in the fact that (a) you refuse to recognize that reality and (b) you think you speak for the world.

As I also predicted, Obama did issue a strongly worded condemnation of the killers, but he combined it with the second part of my prediction, which was his assurance that the killers, despite rejoicing under a name with the word “Islamic” in it, despite dedicating their acts to Allah, and despite self-identifying as Muslim are, in fact, not Muslims at all:

Let’s be clear about ISIL. They have rampaged across cities and villages killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can, for no other reason than they practice a different religion.

They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people. So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just god would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day. ISIL has no ideology of any value to human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt. (Emphasis added.)

Does Obama actually believe this mush-brained babble? Does he actually think he’s the one who gets to define what constitutes Islam? If it’s good and harmonizes with his hard Left values, it’s Islam; if it’s bad and actually follows the word of the Prophet, and dedicates all acts to its religion, than Obama gets to say it’s not Islam. Obama seems to be arrogating an awful lot of godlike power to himself there.

What Obama should have done was to call on those humanists who practice Islam to join with him to call out those who have hijacked the religion to the most barbaric ends. The problem, of course, is that Obama may not want to reveal that, in answer to such a call, he might have ended up with a Muslim protest against radical Islam that looks just like this:

Muslims against ISIS

And lastly, as I predicted, Barack Obama promised that at some point in the future, America would finally begin to get angry and quite possibly do something, maybe:

The United States of America will continue to do what we must do to protect our people. We will be vigilant and we will be relentless. When people harm Americans anywhere, we do what’s necessary to see that justice is done and we act against ISIL, standing alongside others.

Aside from vague promises that American would be vigilant, relentless and “see that justice is done” (or, according to my prediction,  “we’ll bring these killers to justice”), Obama actually demanded more from Middle Eastern nations than he did from himself:

From governments and peoples across the Middle East, there has to be a common effort to extract this cancer so that it does not spread. There has to be a clear rejection of this kind of nihilistic ideologies. One thing we can all agree on is that a group like ISIL has no place in the 21st century. Friends and allies around the world, we share a common security and a common set of values that are rooted in the opposite of what we saw yesterday. And we will continue to confront this hateful terrorism and replace it with a sense of hope and civility.

I don’t know about you, but considering that Islamism that has swept the Middle East on Obama’s watch; considering the aid he gave this Islamism, whether backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or weaponizing Muslims through illegal gun-running in Libya; and considering that Muslims and Arabs will always back the strong horse, which Obama is not, I do not see any of those nations heeding his call.  In fact, the only nation that was born heeding his call — that would be Israel — is the nation to which he is most obviously hostile.

Obama’s speech was, in a word, dreadful. Or appalling. Or disgraceful. Or awful. Or, or . . . well, you know what I mean. It was not the speech of a leader, and most certainly not the speech of the leader of a country that once was the most powerful country in the world.

Can you imagine Franklin Roosevelt, a good Leftist who dreamed of a socialist structure in America, making such a mealy-mouthed statement if the Nazis, in 1940, had brutally, and publicly, executed an American citizen? I can’t even begin to create a satire, not only because I’m not good at that type of satire, but because my mind simply won’t bend to that kind of alternative history.

Obama then capped this utterly un-serious, meaningless, disrespectful (good ole “Jim”) speech by turning around and, with a big smile, yelling “Fore.”

Obama is all smiles after the Foley speech

Has there ever been a more feckless man in the White House? And has there ever been a more dangerous time in our nation’s history, when a manifestly deadly enemy has clearly announced its intention to kill us and destroy our nation, even as our leader refuses to acknowledge that enemy’s existence? And, moreover, even as our leader gets out his fiddle and plays away, watching the world burn?  If we’ve ever been at greater danger, not just from an enemy abroad, but from a Fifth Column leader at home, you’ll have to remind me, because my mind’s drawing a blank.