The United States of America is being lead by a professional community organizer who does not love America or what it stands for. President Buraq Obama is no leader. He is a campaigner, he does love himself, he is an anti-semite, he believes he knows better what the people need than the people do themselves. Why is this man in the position to lead a nation he does not care for.
Lets face it, if the president had lengthy exposure to a muslim nation during his formative years, he probably saw and heard anti-Americanism and anti-semitism, probably in an off hand acceptable fashion. Fast forward to his long term membership in Reverend Jeremiah Wrights' congregation, a reverend who hates the USA, who is anti-semitic and is proudly loud and vocal about it. Years of exposure to these attitudes have made our president a man who does not love the USA, and his undignified treatment of Israel, in behavior and policy, show him to be a "Judeophobe"
How does this president approach everything? Like a cultural muslim. I am not saying he is a muslim. I do not believe he is. What I do believe is that this man does not see the USA the same way most citizens who love their country do. Having seen him ram a bill down the peoples throat against their will, remove all hint of islam or islamism from the national security dialogue, taking states to court who legally vote in laws within the borders of their state, spend, spend, spend, talk, talk, talk, campaign, campaign, campaign, talk, talk, talk.
The USA is an exceptional nation, but if we allow this president to continue this non sense without challenging him, he will be emboldened to continue his charade instead of actually doing what the people hired him to do. He must stop the appeasement of islam. He must surround himself with critical thinking individuals who love the USA and will listen to the citizens. These are things he should have done two years ago, he didn't because it wasn't that important to him. He doesn't have to remind himself that he hates what the USA stands for, it is part of the fabric of who he is, he probably really believes he loves the USA, he probably does not think he is an anti-semite, yet his behavior betrays him.
That is the point, when you have been conditioned in one way of thinking your behavior will follow right along. Obamas actions highlight his contempt for freedom, his contempt for Israel and his joy over imposing on Americans his way. America, we need a do over, fast.
Friday, August 6, 2010
American Exceptionalism
I am an immigrant, here by choice, legally. I am here because this nation, the United States of America is an exceptional nation. It was built by people who desired freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom from tyranny and freedom to pursue happiness. The people who built this nation worked hard to build it. That is not to say some mistakes, some very bad mistakes, were not made. When dealing with the human condition, nothing is ideal, even when the goal is.
Slavery was a mistake, a bad one. The Viet-Nam war was a mistake. The Iraq invasion was a mistake based on a lie. There is a list of mistakes the USA has probably made. The truth be told, this country with all its' mistakes is still the most generous and helpful country on the earth. When other nations experience disasters the USA is always on scene, usually first, see Pakistan and its' current flooding. The citizens of the USA are the primary contributors of funding for the UN, which in turn , puts the worst human rights violators in key human rights positions. The USA shares any technological break throughs, that do not compromise national security, to enrich other countries. The people give time and money for charitable service every year. Yet our very own president tells others we are no more exceptional than any other nation.
The USA is an exceptional nation, but if we allow this president to continue this non sense without challenging him, he will be emboldened to continue his charade instead of actually doing what the people hired him to do. He was elected to protect the Constitution, the people and the nation. What he has done is go around the globe on an apology tour that does not seem to have an end. Obamas years under the reverend Jeremiah Wright have taught him to hate the USA and what it stands for, should anyone be surprised by the fact that he is pitching the USA. How did this person become president, it defys reality.
When the leader of a nation does not think his nation, his people and their endeavors are exceptional, he will guide with that in mind. Watch where the US is headed, Bush was bad, this is worse. The USA has lost its' standing among other nations. At one time the USA was THE exceptional nation, we can be that again. We just need to elect a leader who leads based on his love for his country.
Slavery was a mistake, a bad one. The Viet-Nam war was a mistake. The Iraq invasion was a mistake based on a lie. There is a list of mistakes the USA has probably made. The truth be told, this country with all its' mistakes is still the most generous and helpful country on the earth. When other nations experience disasters the USA is always on scene, usually first, see Pakistan and its' current flooding. The citizens of the USA are the primary contributors of funding for the UN, which in turn , puts the worst human rights violators in key human rights positions. The USA shares any technological break throughs, that do not compromise national security, to enrich other countries. The people give time and money for charitable service every year. Yet our very own president tells others we are no more exceptional than any other nation.
The USA is an exceptional nation, but if we allow this president to continue this non sense without challenging him, he will be emboldened to continue his charade instead of actually doing what the people hired him to do. He was elected to protect the Constitution, the people and the nation. What he has done is go around the globe on an apology tour that does not seem to have an end. Obamas years under the reverend Jeremiah Wright have taught him to hate the USA and what it stands for, should anyone be surprised by the fact that he is pitching the USA. How did this person become president, it defys reality.
When the leader of a nation does not think his nation, his people and their endeavors are exceptional, he will guide with that in mind. Watch where the US is headed, Bush was bad, this is worse. The USA has lost its' standing among other nations. At one time the USA was THE exceptional nation, we can be that again. We just need to elect a leader who leads based on his love for his country.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Same Sex Marriage Ban Overturned
The Washington Post is reporting that a judge in California has overturned the ban on same sex marriage. If this is true it is another strike against freedom. The voters of California have twice voted against this and each time the Gay and Lesbians have not been able to accept the truth or the reality thereof; Californians do not believe in same sex marriage in enough numbers to change the vote.
Now the gays and lesbians are litigating to get there way under the guise that their civil liberties are being denied. Rubbish. In my earlier post I stated how freedom will be lost, due to small groups demanding special status. Here we are. The voters votes don't count, so is this a free society. Not any more. I would like to thank every gay and lesbian backing this atrocity for eroding the freedom of this nation, this is setting a precedent.
Let me be clear about this, this is NOT a civil rights issue. This is an issue about a minority group demanding the majority kow tow down to their beliefs. They want favored and special status, they don't care about right and wrong. The two couples whining about their civil rights being infringed upon are self absorbed, selfish babies who don't care about anything except having their own way, regardless of what their community says. Sad, sad, sad day for freedom in America, for the rule of law, for the American voter. The judge deserves to go the way of politicians.
Now the gays and lesbians are litigating to get there way under the guise that their civil liberties are being denied. Rubbish. In my earlier post I stated how freedom will be lost, due to small groups demanding special status. Here we are. The voters votes don't count, so is this a free society. Not any more. I would like to thank every gay and lesbian backing this atrocity for eroding the freedom of this nation, this is setting a precedent.
Let me be clear about this, this is NOT a civil rights issue. This is an issue about a minority group demanding the majority kow tow down to their beliefs. They want favored and special status, they don't care about right and wrong. The two couples whining about their civil rights being infringed upon are self absorbed, selfish babies who don't care about anything except having their own way, regardless of what their community says. Sad, sad, sad day for freedom in America, for the rule of law, for the American voter. The judge deserves to go the way of politicians.
Blackberry phones, Islam and Freedom
So the United Arab Emirates is demanding that RIM( research in motion), the parent company of the Blackberry phone, make e-mails and other activity of the user accessable to the government. Of course only despotic states would demand something like this. Up until now RIM has maintained it would not do this.....up until now. Now there are more players involved, you see when numbers bear down, companies will eventually capitulate. Welcome Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and China into the fray. How much of a chance do you think RIM has against these giants. These countries know if they get enough numbers threatening RIM, RIM will give in.
This is how islam is attempting to change the world, through numbers. The 57 member Organiztion of Islamic Countries( OIC) has been playing this game for a while now. With their voting bloc they are attempting to do to the world what these few countries are doing to RIM. One of the biggest issues in the world for the OIC is the blasphemy law they have been peddling to the UN for years now. They want to make it illegal to make disparaging remarks about their religion, you see, they say it will protect all religions, but islam is the only religion named in this bill. Wait until your freedom of speech is taken away, Obama would do this in a heartbeat if given half a chance.
So freedom to islam is not something to be cherished, it is to be used to subjugate. Whether it be RIM or the world makes no difference, islam will impose itself.
Wake up world.
This is how islam is attempting to change the world, through numbers. The 57 member Organiztion of Islamic Countries( OIC) has been playing this game for a while now. With their voting bloc they are attempting to do to the world what these few countries are doing to RIM. One of the biggest issues in the world for the OIC is the blasphemy law they have been peddling to the UN for years now. They want to make it illegal to make disparaging remarks about their religion, you see, they say it will protect all religions, but islam is the only religion named in this bill. Wait until your freedom of speech is taken away, Obama would do this in a heartbeat if given half a chance.
So freedom to islam is not something to be cherished, it is to be used to subjugate. Whether it be RIM or the world makes no difference, islam will impose itself.
Wake up world.
The Circus Never Ends
...and here we go again. 60% of California voters voted for Proposition 8 in 2008, which re-enforced marriage between a man and a woman. This is the second vote on this subject in less then 10 years, with the outcome being the same, no same sex marriage. Yet I am already hearing about polls that show Californians would vote it in today. Polls were taken prior to the two votes that showed Californians were open to same sex marriage, yet both votes showed different. So here is just another group, much like islam in America, that demands special rights and privileged status.
When I talk about freedom slowly being eroded, this is what I am talking about. Small groups who demand special status and if they don't get it they will litigate until the opposition either capitulates or is out of money to defend itself. The amount of money spent on these litigations is perverse. The fact that groups like this don't care about the financial impact this is having on their communities is as bad as their lack of understanding that in a free society, that bases laws on the vote of the people, when the vote is over the people have spoken, period. The people said no, the gay and lesbian community cannot accept this, so they will strain the people, the courts and themselves to see their selfish ideals through.
I understand that gays and lesbians have had a tough journey through life, with the name calling, the insinuations, the cruel and callous people they have encountered in their lives. As a believer in love and forgiveness I can only imagine how tough it has been for them. Having said that, this is their journey, and their journey has taken them here. Here is California, where 60% of the voters said no to same sex marriage. If you don't like the outcome, show the voting people of California that they should change their minds through deeds, lobbying, educational events etc, not morally and financially expensive litigation. I personally do not believe in same sex marriage, but if the people allow it, hey this is a secular nation( although grounded on Judeo-Christian principles) if the people say OK, well then OK. Render unto the gays and lesbians what the people say! Up until now the people have said no.
Where will this all end? Ultimately with the destruction of a free and pluralistic society. No it won't be the gay and lesbians fault, although they are making their contribution. Our freedom will be taken away by our continued back peddling from the truth. The truth is that as a society we are now tolerating the intolerable to prove we are tolerant, which will lead to our demise. Gays and lesbians are not destroying our nation alone, their approach is being used by many other minority groups who demand our society accommodate them. The United States are slowly fracturing under the constant pressure from small groups of people seeking special status. Being in America, with its' freedom is not good enough for some groups. I would suggest they take a breath and think about where they would have it better.
When I talk about freedom slowly being eroded, this is what I am talking about. Small groups who demand special status and if they don't get it they will litigate until the opposition either capitulates or is out of money to defend itself. The amount of money spent on these litigations is perverse. The fact that groups like this don't care about the financial impact this is having on their communities is as bad as their lack of understanding that in a free society, that bases laws on the vote of the people, when the vote is over the people have spoken, period. The people said no, the gay and lesbian community cannot accept this, so they will strain the people, the courts and themselves to see their selfish ideals through.
I understand that gays and lesbians have had a tough journey through life, with the name calling, the insinuations, the cruel and callous people they have encountered in their lives. As a believer in love and forgiveness I can only imagine how tough it has been for them. Having said that, this is their journey, and their journey has taken them here. Here is California, where 60% of the voters said no to same sex marriage. If you don't like the outcome, show the voting people of California that they should change their minds through deeds, lobbying, educational events etc, not morally and financially expensive litigation. I personally do not believe in same sex marriage, but if the people allow it, hey this is a secular nation( although grounded on Judeo-Christian principles) if the people say OK, well then OK. Render unto the gays and lesbians what the people say! Up until now the people have said no.
Where will this all end? Ultimately with the destruction of a free and pluralistic society. No it won't be the gay and lesbians fault, although they are making their contribution. Our freedom will be taken away by our continued back peddling from the truth. The truth is that as a society we are now tolerating the intolerable to prove we are tolerant, which will lead to our demise. Gays and lesbians are not destroying our nation alone, their approach is being used by many other minority groups who demand our society accommodate them. The United States are slowly fracturing under the constant pressure from small groups of people seeking special status. Being in America, with its' freedom is not good enough for some groups. I would suggest they take a breath and think about where they would have it better.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
The Privileged Elite
In order to maintain a free society leaders must be of excellent moral fiber. They must be people who want to serve their community. What we have now are representatives who want to serve themselves. Remember when congressman Jefferson was found to have over $90,000 hidden in his freezer, it was bribe money, his excuse was he was keeping it fresh( not really).
Now we have Charlie Rangel being charged with improper financial disclosures, not paying taxes on $600,000 worth of income( Oh come on, whats a little oversight like $600,000) and using his position as congressman to solicit money for his private endeavors( Oh come on, whats a little conflict of interest, he's a congressman for crying out loud). The congressman used his office time and official congress letterheads ,stamps and envelopes to solicit money for his community center, named after him of course. So how would an elitist react to being charged for these things: "Oh come on, these things are not true".
The man was only going to be reprimanded? If any other citizen had attempted this they would be looking at jail time and a substantial fine, not a reprimand. Shame on Rangel, shame on congress. Oh but it doesn't stop there.....
Now we also have Maxine Waters, another life long pig at the trough of public money. Of course the money is not enough and this is not about serving the community, it is about serving Maxine Waters. Well Mrs Waters found that in late 2008 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being helped by the government because they had taken a beating in the real estate meltdown. Mrs. Waters called Hank Paulson, who was Treasury Secretary at the time, and set up a meeting with some of the minority bank owners in her district who were concerned about the real estate situation and how this would impact them. Paulson sent Treaury people to meet with Mrs. Waters and her concerned bank representatives. It turned out only one bank was reperesented, the bank that her husband had been on the Board of up until a few months before this. More damning, though, was that her husband had investments in this bank of up to $1,000,000. Before the meeting she ran all of this by Bernie Frank, also a congressman, who told her to leave it alone, she didn't and now she has been indicted.
How nice it must be, to control the purse strings of America. Hey, if things go wrong I can always game the system, you see I am privileged, I am a congressman, not just some ordinary citizen. Rangel has been in office for 40 years, Waters has been in for 20 years. You see the pattern. I am comfortable in my position, nobody can take it away from me, I can do whatever I want and no one may question me.
I believe there are many more of these stories, they just have not seen the light of day. These people just happen to have been caught. What does that say about our nation. To me it says we are in peril, if a person loves money , power and wealth this much, what would they give for it, our nation, our freedom. These people are seditious, the people who want to "reprimand " people of this low moral code should be tried themselves. Why not replace these people with people who really care about the USA and will do the peoples work? Send the pigs feeding from the trough back to their respective pens.
Now we have Charlie Rangel being charged with improper financial disclosures, not paying taxes on $600,000 worth of income( Oh come on, whats a little oversight like $600,000) and using his position as congressman to solicit money for his private endeavors( Oh come on, whats a little conflict of interest, he's a congressman for crying out loud). The congressman used his office time and official congress letterheads ,stamps and envelopes to solicit money for his community center, named after him of course. So how would an elitist react to being charged for these things: "Oh come on, these things are not true".
The man was only going to be reprimanded? If any other citizen had attempted this they would be looking at jail time and a substantial fine, not a reprimand. Shame on Rangel, shame on congress. Oh but it doesn't stop there.....
Now we also have Maxine Waters, another life long pig at the trough of public money. Of course the money is not enough and this is not about serving the community, it is about serving Maxine Waters. Well Mrs Waters found that in late 2008 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being helped by the government because they had taken a beating in the real estate meltdown. Mrs. Waters called Hank Paulson, who was Treasury Secretary at the time, and set up a meeting with some of the minority bank owners in her district who were concerned about the real estate situation and how this would impact them. Paulson sent Treaury people to meet with Mrs. Waters and her concerned bank representatives. It turned out only one bank was reperesented, the bank that her husband had been on the Board of up until a few months before this. More damning, though, was that her husband had investments in this bank of up to $1,000,000. Before the meeting she ran all of this by Bernie Frank, also a congressman, who told her to leave it alone, she didn't and now she has been indicted.
How nice it must be, to control the purse strings of America. Hey, if things go wrong I can always game the system, you see I am privileged, I am a congressman, not just some ordinary citizen. Rangel has been in office for 40 years, Waters has been in for 20 years. You see the pattern. I am comfortable in my position, nobody can take it away from me, I can do whatever I want and no one may question me.
I believe there are many more of these stories, they just have not seen the light of day. These people just happen to have been caught. What does that say about our nation. To me it says we are in peril, if a person loves money , power and wealth this much, what would they give for it, our nation, our freedom. These people are seditious, the people who want to "reprimand " people of this low moral code should be tried themselves. Why not replace these people with people who really care about the USA and will do the peoples work? Send the pigs feeding from the trough back to their respective pens.
The Idiots in the Main Stream Media
I found this article in the Washington Post, in the "On Faith" section. It boggles the mind to see people writing about things they have no understanding of. Ms. Thistlewaite has obviously never read the quran or the associated writings( hadith, sunna). It is disturbing to see how the main stream media makes proclamations about things they do not study or know about, knowing people rely ion them for information. My comments are in the parenthesis between lines.
Is fear of Islam the new McCarthyism?
By Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
Religious freedom and the right of free expression are the strongest source of power Americans have for combating radicals who use Islam as the excuse for their violent extremism.
(The extremist do not need excuses, they are taking their directives from the quran and its' associated writings.)
The struggle with such extremists will not, indeed cannot, be won with military force, but through the power of our values.
(The same values they respected so much when they brought down the World Trade Center?)
If there is a "narrative" abroad in the world that justifies violence against the West because the West "hates Islam," the way to correct that narrative is with the practice of our cherished ideals of religious freedom and tolerance for diversity of opinion.
(The "Narrative" is the quran, it teaches its' followers not to tolerate other religions, ideas or opinions.The notion that the west hates islam is just that, a notion, but a notion is all islam needs.)
Instead, however, conservatives such as Newt Gingrich want us to reject not only violent extremists, but also Islamic ideas, especially ideas on religious law, that is, Sharia law.
(The writer is obviously ignorant of sharia. Sharia is the racist, sexist, intolerant, hateful, ignorant law of islam. Under sharia this writer would be barefoot, pregnant and beaten, legally.)
Gingrich believes that Americans are "at risk" as a nation, not only from the violence of a "militant Islam," but also from the cultural integration of Muslims in the West.
(Islam does not integrate, it is not here to share, it is here to conquer)
The latter he calls "stealth jihadists." A close historical parallel, Gingrich argued in a lengthy address to the American Enterprise Institute entitled America at Risk: Camus, National Security and Afghanistan, where he is now a senior fellow, is the struggle with aommunism.
Almost, but not quite. The total approach Gingrich is proposing has a better historical parallel in McCarthyism.
(McCarthy went after people who denied any wrong doing, mostly. Gingrich is just pointing out what islam tells us to our face.)
McCarthyism has come to mean making charges of disloyalty or even subversion without regard for adequate evidence.
( There is plenty of evidence showing islam in its' true light)
In his address, Gingrich offered a lot of anger and fear, but very little actual evidence to support his claims about Islam and the West, or even his claims about the ineffectiveness of President Obama's approach to National Security. Joseph McCarthy, as is well known, was a Senator from Wisconsin, who used his position as chairman of the Committee on Government Operations and its Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to launch investigations designed to document charges of Communists in government. His often unsubstantiated charges, and the so-called "blacklists" that were created, suppressed American traditions of political dissent, and cultural creativity for many years. McCarthy was censured by the Senate on December 2, 1954, for behavior that was "contrary to senatorial traditions."
(The comparison to McCarthy is a not relavent. The communists in this country were not blowing up buildings, attempting to kill our troops here and abroad, they were not imposing their laws on the US. They were not killing their children over honor, they were not attempting to ignite bombs in their underpants, in airplanes full of people. The communists were not killing our troop at deployment centers, or setting bombs at Time Square. Should we blacklist muslims? Of course not. If they want to support his nation, fully, why should they be blacklisted. The truth is that most muslims are loyal to islam first, that is the beginning of the problem, a problem this writer appears to gloss over with accusations of McCarthyism)
But it is not the career of McCarthy himself that provides the best historical example of the political power of anti-Communism. Historian Rick Perlstein, in his book Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, describes the way in which the "the politics of anger," including anti-Communist fervor, were employed by Richard Nixon. Nixon, junior Congressman on the House Un-American Activities Committee, recognized how popular anti-Communism could be as a political platform and employed it to eventually be elected president.
(Now the accustion of "the politics of anger", as though any American has no right to be angry about what islam is attempting to do to this nation. I believe a reasonable amount of anger is justified. Again, islam is not in America to make nice, until islam divests itself from its supremist doctrine, it should be scrutinized in detail)
It is, of course, more than likely that the tactics used by the HUAC were sometimes replicated by the Nixon White House and resulted in the Watergate Scandal that led to Nixon's resignation.
Gingrich, perhaps best remembered for his ethics troubles, his resignation from his House Seat and as Speaker of the House, and his confession of an extra-marital affair, is now moving to the religious right, as well as further to the political right. Gingrich says he will "consider" a 2012 run for the Presidency, and clearly this national security address that focuses on an "Islamic threat" is an opening gambit in that effort.
(It is fine that the writer wants to slam Gingrich, morally he is dubious. What about the rest of the Americans who see the same thing and are not morally dubious, I guess they don't count and of course this article could not have been written without some western person to slam, Newt was an easy soft target)
Conservatives are very divided over national security, argues Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress. In light of that, an all-pervasive "Islamic threat," it seems to me, can look like a very attractive, politically unifying strategy. This is a cardinal tenet, in fact, of the politics of anger. People divided about their own constructive approaches to an issue can become united in the face of a perceived outside threat, as was the case for Nixon and Communism.
Violent extremists are a threat. That's not a fantasy. But why single out the idea of Sharia?
(Because sharia is hateful, racist, sexist, intolerant, icompatable with democracy and pluralism, incapable of allowing freedom of expression or religion... do I need to continue?)
I personally also disagree with adopting Sharia law in democracies such as we have in the U.S. and have said so, repeatedly.
( The first sign of sanity in the article)
But to make what is a debate over ideas into a dangerous threat posed by Islam to the West, instead of focusing on violent extremism, is to make Islam itself a vague and yet all-pervasive threat in very much the same way that McCarthy made even general leftist ideas into a threat to national security.
(Until muslims reject the supremist doctrine, reform their approach to their doctrine, islam is a security threat)
What is dangerous about the McCarthyism of conservatives like Gingrich is that making ideas in Islam into the threat, they risk fueling the very narrative about the United States "hating Islam" that violent extremists use to recruit young people. The only way to combat those who would use hatred of Islam as a reason to attack the United States is to actually practice our American values of religious freedom and political inclusion.
( There is nothing non-muslims can do to combat the ideas of islam, they are written in their holy book, only muslims can change their ideas, the author is being very misleading about what can be done. Islam is not open to debate, one cannot have a meaningful dialogue with people who, by directive, can lie to you. Islam does not want to be questioned, so for me to say the writer is "misleading", is me being nice.)
Newt Gingrich peppered his national security address about the threat of Islam with references to famous figures who fought Nazism as well as communism, though not Nixon. He quotes Harry Truman several times, but he does not quote Truman on the dangers of targeting ideas rather than acts in regard to fighting the threat of Communism.
(Fighting ideas is one thing, the chasm at ground zero is what happens when islam gets an idea,)
In 1950, Truman vetoed the McCarran Internal Security Act, and wrote this about his veto: "The basic error of these sections is that they move in the direction of suppressing opinion and belief. This would be a very dangerous course to take, not because we have any sympathy for communist opinions, but because any governmental stifling of the free expression of opinion is a long step toward totalitarianism. There is no more fundamental axiom of American freedom than the familiar statement: In a free country, we punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they have." (Italics added)
(So now we cannot critically look at islam, but we can beat up Newt Gingrich for his educated opinion on islam. The writer has a little bit of McCarthyism going on herself!)
There's another historical figure who was not featured in the Gingrich address, but whom we who venture into the media would do well to emulate: Edward R. Murrow, the famed CBS newscaster and analyst, who took on McCarthy and his tactics. On March 9, 1954, Murrow said these words that rebuked forever those who would use fear to manipulate our political processes.
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember we are not descended from fearful men--not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular."
Let's remember who we are as Americans who cherish religious freedom and value political dissent. It is the strongest source of our power as a nation. We should value Islam as a part of the American fabric of religious diversity, debate its many ideas in the public square, and not be afraid to do so.
(Honor killing girls and blowing up buildings must be dissent, the chasm where the World Trade Center once stood is apparently not enough evidence, murdering innocent soldiers at Fort Hood is apparently not "disloyal". Until islam shows that it wants to integrate into the fabric of the democracy and pluralism that the USA shares, it will not be accepted as is.)
By Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite August 1, 2010; 3:13 PM ET
Is fear of Islam the new McCarthyism?
By Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
Religious freedom and the right of free expression are the strongest source of power Americans have for combating radicals who use Islam as the excuse for their violent extremism.
(The extremist do not need excuses, they are taking their directives from the quran and its' associated writings.)
The struggle with such extremists will not, indeed cannot, be won with military force, but through the power of our values.
(The same values they respected so much when they brought down the World Trade Center?)
If there is a "narrative" abroad in the world that justifies violence against the West because the West "hates Islam," the way to correct that narrative is with the practice of our cherished ideals of religious freedom and tolerance for diversity of opinion.
(The "Narrative" is the quran, it teaches its' followers not to tolerate other religions, ideas or opinions.The notion that the west hates islam is just that, a notion, but a notion is all islam needs.)
Instead, however, conservatives such as Newt Gingrich want us to reject not only violent extremists, but also Islamic ideas, especially ideas on religious law, that is, Sharia law.
(The writer is obviously ignorant of sharia. Sharia is the racist, sexist, intolerant, hateful, ignorant law of islam. Under sharia this writer would be barefoot, pregnant and beaten, legally.)
Gingrich believes that Americans are "at risk" as a nation, not only from the violence of a "militant Islam," but also from the cultural integration of Muslims in the West.
(Islam does not integrate, it is not here to share, it is here to conquer)
The latter he calls "stealth jihadists." A close historical parallel, Gingrich argued in a lengthy address to the American Enterprise Institute entitled America at Risk: Camus, National Security and Afghanistan, where he is now a senior fellow, is the struggle with aommunism.
Almost, but not quite. The total approach Gingrich is proposing has a better historical parallel in McCarthyism.
(McCarthy went after people who denied any wrong doing, mostly. Gingrich is just pointing out what islam tells us to our face.)
McCarthyism has come to mean making charges of disloyalty or even subversion without regard for adequate evidence.
( There is plenty of evidence showing islam in its' true light)
In his address, Gingrich offered a lot of anger and fear, but very little actual evidence to support his claims about Islam and the West, or even his claims about the ineffectiveness of President Obama's approach to National Security. Joseph McCarthy, as is well known, was a Senator from Wisconsin, who used his position as chairman of the Committee on Government Operations and its Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to launch investigations designed to document charges of Communists in government. His often unsubstantiated charges, and the so-called "blacklists" that were created, suppressed American traditions of political dissent, and cultural creativity for many years. McCarthy was censured by the Senate on December 2, 1954, for behavior that was "contrary to senatorial traditions."
(The comparison to McCarthy is a not relavent. The communists in this country were not blowing up buildings, attempting to kill our troops here and abroad, they were not imposing their laws on the US. They were not killing their children over honor, they were not attempting to ignite bombs in their underpants, in airplanes full of people. The communists were not killing our troop at deployment centers, or setting bombs at Time Square. Should we blacklist muslims? Of course not. If they want to support his nation, fully, why should they be blacklisted. The truth is that most muslims are loyal to islam first, that is the beginning of the problem, a problem this writer appears to gloss over with accusations of McCarthyism)
But it is not the career of McCarthy himself that provides the best historical example of the political power of anti-Communism. Historian Rick Perlstein, in his book Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, describes the way in which the "the politics of anger," including anti-Communist fervor, were employed by Richard Nixon. Nixon, junior Congressman on the House Un-American Activities Committee, recognized how popular anti-Communism could be as a political platform and employed it to eventually be elected president.
(Now the accustion of "the politics of anger", as though any American has no right to be angry about what islam is attempting to do to this nation. I believe a reasonable amount of anger is justified. Again, islam is not in America to make nice, until islam divests itself from its supremist doctrine, it should be scrutinized in detail)
It is, of course, more than likely that the tactics used by the HUAC were sometimes replicated by the Nixon White House and resulted in the Watergate Scandal that led to Nixon's resignation.
Gingrich, perhaps best remembered for his ethics troubles, his resignation from his House Seat and as Speaker of the House, and his confession of an extra-marital affair, is now moving to the religious right, as well as further to the political right. Gingrich says he will "consider" a 2012 run for the Presidency, and clearly this national security address that focuses on an "Islamic threat" is an opening gambit in that effort.
(It is fine that the writer wants to slam Gingrich, morally he is dubious. What about the rest of the Americans who see the same thing and are not morally dubious, I guess they don't count and of course this article could not have been written without some western person to slam, Newt was an easy soft target)
Conservatives are very divided over national security, argues Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress. In light of that, an all-pervasive "Islamic threat," it seems to me, can look like a very attractive, politically unifying strategy. This is a cardinal tenet, in fact, of the politics of anger. People divided about their own constructive approaches to an issue can become united in the face of a perceived outside threat, as was the case for Nixon and Communism.
Violent extremists are a threat. That's not a fantasy. But why single out the idea of Sharia?
(Because sharia is hateful, racist, sexist, intolerant, icompatable with democracy and pluralism, incapable of allowing freedom of expression or religion... do I need to continue?)
I personally also disagree with adopting Sharia law in democracies such as we have in the U.S. and have said so, repeatedly.
( The first sign of sanity in the article)
But to make what is a debate over ideas into a dangerous threat posed by Islam to the West, instead of focusing on violent extremism, is to make Islam itself a vague and yet all-pervasive threat in very much the same way that McCarthy made even general leftist ideas into a threat to national security.
(Until muslims reject the supremist doctrine, reform their approach to their doctrine, islam is a security threat)
What is dangerous about the McCarthyism of conservatives like Gingrich is that making ideas in Islam into the threat, they risk fueling the very narrative about the United States "hating Islam" that violent extremists use to recruit young people. The only way to combat those who would use hatred of Islam as a reason to attack the United States is to actually practice our American values of religious freedom and political inclusion.
( There is nothing non-muslims can do to combat the ideas of islam, they are written in their holy book, only muslims can change their ideas, the author is being very misleading about what can be done. Islam is not open to debate, one cannot have a meaningful dialogue with people who, by directive, can lie to you. Islam does not want to be questioned, so for me to say the writer is "misleading", is me being nice.)
Newt Gingrich peppered his national security address about the threat of Islam with references to famous figures who fought Nazism as well as communism, though not Nixon. He quotes Harry Truman several times, but he does not quote Truman on the dangers of targeting ideas rather than acts in regard to fighting the threat of Communism.
(Fighting ideas is one thing, the chasm at ground zero is what happens when islam gets an idea,)
In 1950, Truman vetoed the McCarran Internal Security Act, and wrote this about his veto: "The basic error of these sections is that they move in the direction of suppressing opinion and belief. This would be a very dangerous course to take, not because we have any sympathy for communist opinions, but because any governmental stifling of the free expression of opinion is a long step toward totalitarianism. There is no more fundamental axiom of American freedom than the familiar statement: In a free country, we punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they have." (Italics added)
(So now we cannot critically look at islam, but we can beat up Newt Gingrich for his educated opinion on islam. The writer has a little bit of McCarthyism going on herself!)
There's another historical figure who was not featured in the Gingrich address, but whom we who venture into the media would do well to emulate: Edward R. Murrow, the famed CBS newscaster and analyst, who took on McCarthy and his tactics. On March 9, 1954, Murrow said these words that rebuked forever those who would use fear to manipulate our political processes.
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember we are not descended from fearful men--not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular."
Let's remember who we are as Americans who cherish religious freedom and value political dissent. It is the strongest source of our power as a nation. We should value Islam as a part of the American fabric of religious diversity, debate its many ideas in the public square, and not be afraid to do so.
(Honor killing girls and blowing up buildings must be dissent, the chasm where the World Trade Center once stood is apparently not enough evidence, murdering innocent soldiers at Fort Hood is apparently not "disloyal". Until islam shows that it wants to integrate into the fabric of the democracy and pluralism that the USA shares, it will not be accepted as is.)
By Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite August 1, 2010; 3:13 PM ET
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)