Aug 16, 2007

If You Were a Leftist, How Would You Attack?

With his New York Times blog post “If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack”, freakonomist Steven D. Levitt whimsically speculates upon new and exciting ways to terrorize and kill innocent Americans. He then invites readers to do the same.

“Consider that posting them could be a form of public service," encourages Levitt. Right then.

In that same spirit of public service, I give you, “If You Were a Leftist, How Would You Attack.” Here we shall whimsically speculate upon new ways Lefties might discredit and derail American military progress in Iraq, thereby making it easier for terrorists to accomodate Mr. Levitt and company’s recommendations above.

In less than a month, General David Petraeus will testify before Congress as to the efficacy of “The Surge.” Despite the Islamaniacs unspeakably barbaric attempts to make it appear otherwise, the vast majority of evidence suggests that, at this juncture, the Surge is achieving its objectives. For Lefties, deeply invested in all things detrimental to America, this is BAD NEWS. Having made failure in Iraq a lynchpin for their success, success in Iraq will prove their lynch rope should it actually come to light. For Lefties then, all efforts must be made to shut out that light.

These efforts began in earnest moments after Bushie announced the surge last January, have continued throughout the summer, and are now ramping up in mid August.

By way of whimsical speculation, however, I’m thinking more in terms of hit jobs on the honor and credibility of General Petraeus prior to his testimony. We have already seen numerous stories linking him to the tragic death of U.S Colonel Theodore S. Westhusing and missing weapons in Iraq. What next, saucy text messages to Mark Foley? Something to do with the resignation of Karl Rove? Come on people, put your eye to the scope and think character-assassination. For the sake of the Left’s survival, THIS MAN MUST BE STOPPED!

As Mr. Levitt says, “consider it a form of public service.”


August 16 is Cost of Defeat National Call Day . Missed it? Not an issue. Click-Call-E-mail. The cost of defeat may be dearer than we know.


gary fouse said...

Religious accommodation- or surrender?

In a free and civilized society, should every person be free to practice his or her own religion? In my view, absolutely. On the other hand, should a society accommodate itself to a minority religion to the point that it subjugates its majority religion and its culture in the process? In my view, absolutely not. This is the question that Western Civilization is confronted with in its relationship with Muslim immigrants. It is troublesome to me that several factions of our society wish to virtually surrender to our Islamic minorities in order to buy peace. In other words, freedom from terroristic attacks.

Let me give you one example. In the Netherlands, a nation that has a growing Muslim minority, that liberal nation has seen a rise in violence perpetrated by Muslims. Dutch film producer, Theo Van Gogh, who had the effrontery to produce a film critical of Islam, was murdered, literally butchered on the streets of a Dutch city in 2004 by a Muslim immigrant in retaliation. Indignation? Only in some quarters. Just this past week, a Dutch Catholic priest, Tiny Muskens, has issued a call for Dutch churches to now refer to God as Allah, solely to appease Muslims in that country.

In another country, Scotland, in the wake of the Muslim terrorist attacks at Glascow Airport, has now passed a regulation that bans workers eating at their desks during the upcoming Ramadan holidays when Muslims are refrained from eating from sunup to sundown. In addition, offices are now expected to remove their food vending machines during Ramadan as well.

Well, you say, that would never happen in the US. Think again. Kansas City Airport has now decided to install foot baths for Muslim cab drivers. Ditto for the University of Michigan at Dearborn in consideration for their Muslim students. Does this fly in the face of the principle of separation of Church and State? Well, yes, but never mind. As you know, universities in the US are all about "Inclusion" and so forth. Of course, if Christians were to ask for a similar concession, they would be promptly refused.

Of course, you and I know that in Europe and the US, there is truly rising anger and indignation among the common folk, not only at Islamic acts of terror world-wide, but also at the arrogance and effrontery of some Muslim immigrants who have resettled in the West and expect us to adjust to their customs and religious practices. Yet, who speaks for us in our governments and universities? At least in Australia, Prime Minister, John Howard, has had the courage to publically tell Australia's Muslim immigrants that they should accept the culture and traditions of the country they have chosen to immigrate to -or return to their countries of origin.

Here in the US, in the wake of 9-11, Muslim groups, such as CAIR are now resorting to legal action against any perceived acts of discrimination against Muslims. The classic example is the lawsuit being filed by the Flying Imams, not only against US Air, but also against any passengers who had the gall to alert officials of suspicious activity by Muslim passengers. If the Muslim minorities in the West want to distance themselves from the majority populations in which they live, they are doing a pretty good job of it.

In my opinion, it comes down to this. Western societies are correct to allow immigrants to maintain and practice their religions. However, there is no obligation to allow these immigrants to subvert our own religions and traditions. We expect immigrants to respect our traditions and not demand concessions from us. Muslims who immigrate to the West are free to build their mosques and practice Islam. They should not be able to demand that we change our customs. So-called "honor killings" cannot ever be allowed in our societies. Anti-Semitism is likewise unacceptable. If we choose to drink alcohol, we will do so. Same with eating pork. They must also understand that freedom of religion also means the freedom to criticize a religion, including Islam. Christianity gets criticized every day in the US. (In Europe, it is all but forgotten.) Why should Islam be immune?

Muslim immigrants need to understand that, while their freedom to practice their religion is protected, they have no right to impose their values on their adopted countries. Those that have visions of converting the West to an Islamic society under Sharia law, should understand that they will only place themselves on the margins of our society. While we should welcome Muslims who wish to assimilate while maintaining their religion, those who do not wish to do so would be better advised to return home.

gary fouse

Denise said...

Gary, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Gary Fouse said...

Chris Matthews and America's "Inability" to Connect with the Muslim World

As a political talk-show junkie, I have to admit that, even though I am a conservative, I used to like Chris Matthews, the host of Hardball on MSNBC. I knew he was a Massachusetts Democrat who had gotten his start in politics working for "Tipp" O"Neill. Yet, on the (relatively few) occasions I watched him on TV, he seemed unafraid to criticize the Democrats when criticism was due. He also seemed to be able to ask hard questions to Democrats as well as Republicans. That earned him my grudging respect.

Recently, however, on the (few) occasions I have observed him, Matthews seems to take a more partison line. Maybe it was the moment in the 2006 mid-term election night coverage, when he was caught on mike openly cheering the announcement of yet another Democratic candidate unseating a Republican incumbant. Maybe it was his comment this week reporting the resignation of Karl Rove by referring to him as "this bum". Then, this morning, while I was driving to work and listening to my usual "hate radio" shows (as liberals call them), I caught Dennis Prager's anaysis of Matthews' interview with a biographer of Barack Obama. During this interview, Matthews (in a segment played by Prager) rhetorically asked the writer if Obama's experience of having lived in a Muslim country (Indonesia) between the ages of 6-10 might have provided him with an insight into the Muslim world that other presidential candidates might lack. (In his question, Matthews explicitly stated that this was his own viewpoint.) Matthews went on to refer to the inability of the US, in his mind, to connect to the Islamic World (I am paraphrasing.)

Aside from the fact that Matthews has allowed his personal opinions to get in the way of his reporting, Prager raised a poignant point. Prager's question was why the US was perceived, in Matthews' mind, to be unable to connect to the Islamic World. Prager first raised the question of what had the US done to Muslims to bring about 9-11 (nothing). Next, and more importantly, Prager reminded his audience of all the conflicts around the world between Muslims and other groups and religions. In the Middle East for example, Muslims are in conflict against Jews. In the West, they are in conflict against Christianity. In Asia, in southern Thailand, for example, they are in conflict against Buddists, or in the Philippines against Catholics. In India, Muslims are in conflict against Hindus. It seems that everywhere one finds large Muslim populations, there is conflict against non-Muslims. This begs the question: Who are the troublemakers here?

Of course, there are many in the West who would argue that it is we who have done something wrong to anger the Muslim world. However, when one looks at the track record all over the world, how do you make the case that the whole world is picking on Islam? Are Filopino Catholics conducting an insurgency in that nation? Are Thai Buddists conducting an insurgency there? No.

To be fair, Matthews and his Democrat allies are not the only offenders. One of the Republican candidates for president, Ron Paul, blames our own nation for making Muslims hate us. There seems to be a large contingent of Westerners who are ready to prostrate themselves and grant any and all concessions to radical Muslims, if only they will stop trying to kill us.

In my view, Americans and the West need to stop being apologetic about who we are and the kind of civilization we have created. The same goes for the Far East. We owe nothing to our minority Muslim populations other than the opportunity to live among us free of discrimination and free to practice their own religion. That we have done a pretty good job of doing. We do not owe them any form of surrender.

As for Matthews, I think he needs to do a little self-examination as to his objective reporting (or lack thereof). If he wants to advance his personal agenda, he should declare himself the liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh and join Air America (if they are still around.) Then again, he could just stay at MSNBC. It's the same thing.

gary fouse

Gary Fouse said...

Who Does the Democratic Party Represent?

If you listen to Democratic politicians talk, you would think that they are concerned for the great middle class-working people, if you will, who are being screwed by the rich upper class, those that are represented by the evil Republicans. Yet, if you look at the recent audiences that the Democratic candidates for president have graced their presence with, it gives you pause.

For example, let us look at the most recent venues that the presidential candidates of the Democratic party have visited. First, they refused to take part in a debate that would have been conducted by Fox News. Why? Were they afraid of receiving hardball questions by this "far-right" network? On the other hand, they have no problem being questioned by the likes of CNN or MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, folks who are, let us say, sympathetic to the liberal, Democratic cause. These folks represent the preferred venue for the Democrats. Did you see the last debate held in Chicago's Soldier Field under the auspices of the AFL-CIO? There was Keith Olbermann throwing up softballs like "How will it feel in your first week as president, when everyone else is vying to replace you?" If you watched it on TV, you probably noticed Sluggo, the union guy, responding to each answer by standing up (behind the candidates) and raising both arms in triumphant applause. I think he liked all of them, even Dennis Kucinich in his ill-fitting suit and probably wearing (union-made) Buster Brown shoes as well.

Then there was the recent appearance by all of the candidates (except "Humble" Joe Biden) before the mad hatters of the left-wing blog, Daily Kos, at their annual convention. It was instructive that the candidates passed on attending the meeting of the (moderate) Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), in order to pander to the far-left wing of their party. Most memorable here was the fact that the candidates competed against each other in demonstrating to the Daily Kos mob who was the most courageous in standing up to Kos critic, Bill O'Reilly. Personally, I would be more interested in knowing who would be more courageous in standing up to Islamic terrorists. But I guess I'm just a narrow-minded bigot.

Finally, there was the "Great Gay Debate" hosted by Melissa Etheridge, who cornered virtually all of the candidates into responding, "Some of my best friends are gay"- or something like that. Another exercise in pandering.
Putting philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives aside, can we agree on one thing? The last thing America needs in this age of international Islamic terror is a president who would pander to anyone. Doesn't all this confirm the image of the Democratics as the party of weakness?

gary fouse