Iconic firefighter photo almost excluded from 9/11 memorial exhibit

July 28, 2013
"Patriotism. How gauche."

“Patriotism. How gauche.”

Because, you see, it’s too “rah-rah American”:

According to Elizabeth Greenspan, author of the up coming book Battle for Ground Zero (St. Martin’s Press), Michael Shulan, creative director of the 9/11 Memorial Museum, thought about cutting the famed photo from Ground Zero of three firefighters raising the American flag amidst the rubble of the World Trade Center…because he thought it was too “rah-rah America.” Shulan said, “I really believe that the way America will look best, the way we can really do best, is to not be Americans so vigilantly and so vehemently.”

The “problem” was eventually solved by adding other pictures, “to undercut the myth of ‘one iconic moment…'”, according to the museum’s curator. See, the lone image was just too simplistic, hiding the complexities and meaning of what happened that day.

Just what part of nearly 3,000 Americans being massacred by Muslims waging  jihad is too simple for you, Mikey? What complexity, what nuance, what other perspective is lacking? The jihadists’? Point-of-view shots from the cockpits as the planes were about to slam into the towers? Should you have included a plaque of the text of Bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa declaring war on us? That would introduce some of your beloved meaning, letting the al Qaeda leader explain in his own words why 9/11 was only justice for our crimes, how we’re as much to blame by making them hate us. And who is to judge who is right? Complexity! Perspective! Meaning!

I hope you’ll forgive this simple American for being too “rah-rah,” Michael, but that single image carries more layers of meaning than I suspect you, trapped in a decadent, nihilist multiculturalism, could ever understand.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Children sing “God bless America.” Leftist hecklers shout “You’ll burn in Hell!”

June 19, 2012

What is wrong with people? Unbelievable:

The event was held outside Public School 90 in Coney Island, N.Y., where school principal Greta Hawkins decided to axe Lee Greenwood’s hit from a kindergarten “moving up” ceremony while keeping Justin Bieber’s chart-topping “Baby.”

Some were offended by the principal’s decision, prompting Rep. Bob Turner, who is running for the U.S. Senate, to organize the event on Tuesday morning.

Shortly after the ceremony began, chaos ensued.

“You Republicans come go to a Republican area and do that, we don’t do that here,” one protester said. “This is ridiculous, this is sad. This is so crazy. This is sad.”

“Excuse me sir, can you let the kids sing please?” a man presumed to be a Turner staffer interjected.

The heckler immediately screamed “No!” and added “The kids don’t even know what they’re singing! They got something you tell them to say! It’s ridiculous! It’s sad, sad, sad. Y’all are going to burn in hell! You all burn in hell! Shame on you! Shame on you!”

Yes because having the kids sing a patriotic song about their wonderful country is a horrible, awful, sinful thing to do.

Must be more of that “new tone” we keep being lectured about by the Left.

via Brian Faughnan

EDIT: Changed the headline from “Democrat” to “Leftist,” since the article only quoted Rush Limbaugh as saying they were Democrats, not the participants themselves. Pretty sure they were Lefties, though.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

The Cannes film festival: Antisemitic or just plain irrelevant?

May 28, 2011

There was a controversy at this years Cannes Film Festival when Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier admitted his sympathies for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. While he was expelled from Cannes for his remarks, Poliwood’s Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd take it as an opportunity to look at Antisemitism and anti-Americanism in the larger European artistic community, as well as questioning whether Cannes as a vehicle for great movies has degenerated into irrelevance:

Krauthammer on Obama and “leading from behind”

April 29, 2011

I wrote about this amazing statement of an Obama Doctrine a few days ago. Well, it’s more accurate to say I sputtered in disbelief at it. In today’s Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer actually analyzes it in a penetrating article I could emulate only in my dreams. The whole piece is a must-read, but here is his discussion of the administration’s perceived need to lead from behind because the world hates us:

It is the fate of any assertive superpower to be envied, denounced and blamed for everything under the sun. Nothing has changed. Moreover, for a country so deeply reviled, why during the massive unrest in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan and Syria have anti-American demonstrations been such a rarity?

Who truly reviles America the hegemon? The world that Obama lived in and shaped him intellectually: the elite universities; his Hyde Park milieu (including his not-to-be-mentioned friends, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn); the church he attended for two decades, ringing with sermons more virulently anti-American than anything heard in today’s full-throated uprising of the Arab Street.

It is the liberal elites who revile the American colossus and devoutly wish to see it cut down to size. Leading from behind — diminishing America’s global standing and assertiveness — is a reaction to their view of America, not the world’s.

Other presidents have taken anti-Americanism as a given, rather than evidence of American malignancy, believing — as do most Americans — in the rightness of our cause and the nobility of our intentions. Obama thinks anti-Americanism is a verdict on America’s fitness for leadership. I would suggest that “leading from behind” is a verdict on Obama’s fitness for leadership.

Leading from behind is not leading. It is abdicating. It is also an oxymoron. Yet a sympathetic journalist, channeling an Obama adviser, elevates it to a doctrine. The president is no doubt flattered. The rest of us are merely stunned.

Three points, nothing but net.

RELATED: More Krauthammer — “Decline is a choice.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

If this guy’s a moderate Muslim, there’s no hope

May 7, 2010

For some reason, many in the West hold up Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi as the model of a moderate Muslim with whom we can get along. (Meaning, “appease.”) Why he’s considered a moderate, I don’t know; his record gives the lie to that legend.

But, why not let the man speak for himself and let the vast readership ( Rolling on the floor ) of Public Secrets make up their own minds? Thanks to MEMRI here are two clips of Qaradawi speaking and preaching over the years.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Note toward the end of the first clip where he says “Religion must lead to war.” Qaradawi is referring to the Islamic supremacist and jihadist imperatives that are an inseparable part of Islam. There is nothing “moderate,” “peaceful,” or “tolerant” about this.

Proof that words are relative, I guess.

Video: Bolton on Obama

April 5, 2009

John Bolton talks to Greta about PBO’s ignorance of the history of European and American relations:

Ignorant of History and ignorant of Economics: I feel so good with Barack Obama in charge, don’t you? Nailbiting

(via Real Clear Politics)


Depending on failure to be right

January 18, 2009

Roger L. Simon dissects Peter Beinart’s (and by extension all liberal pundits’) need for Iraq to fail so George W. Bush can never be vindicated about the decision to invade that country.

And, when you think about it, it reflects their need for their own country to fail, too.


Hamas in their own words

January 8, 2009

MEMRI has posted a video of Hamas psychos leaders discussing what turns them on. Hint, it’s not walks on the beach, S’mores, nor even puppies.


It amazes me that these refugees from a 7th-century insane asylum can be so open about their goals, yet so few people bother to pay attention. At wits end

Kind of like another group I can think of

(hat tip: Weekly Standard)


By the way

November 8, 2008

Can we please finally lay to rest this nonsense that the United States is a racist country and that Americans are a racist people?

Probably not. Frustrated


Technorati tags: ,


October 17, 2008

At an Obama rally in New Hampshire yesterday, the national anthem was scratched to make room for one more speech praising the Prophet Barack.

Think about that. Thinking


The company you keep, one in a series

June 12, 2008

Reverend Wright, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Father Pfleger, Tony Rezko, James Johnson. These are some of the people whose association with Barack Obama has lead us to question the vaunted judgment of the Harbinger of Hope, Change, and Waffles. (That’s just a distraction! –Rocky Shut up and eat your fish food.) Now we have the latest, but I bet not the last: Jodie Evans, founder of the moonbat group Code Pink and a woman who thinks we should listen to Osama bin Laden:

A co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink, which has made a name for itself by interrupting hearings on Capitol Hill, is a fundraising bundler for Barack Obama.

Jodie Evans has pledged to raise at least $50,000 for Obama, according the Democrat’s campaign site.

According to research being circulated by GOP sources, Evans has a record of inflammatory statements such as saying that women were better off in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, “Men are dying in their Hummers in Iraq so you can drive around in yours” and, my favorite, that the invasion of Iraq amounted to “global testosterone poisoning.”

Oh, and about that bin Laden comment? Ed Morrissey provides the audio file of Evans’ appearance on a Kansas radio show:

Ibbetson (the show host) tries to explain that we hadn’t done anything to provoke the 9/11 attacks by saying we hadn’t invaded Afghanistan. Evans replies that we were in Saudi Arabia, which to her gave al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden a rational reason to kill thousands of Americans in terrorist attacks. Note that she says, “I don’t think any terrorist attack is justified,” and then says we should listen to Osama bin Laden and change our policies because — “Sometimes, it would be a good idea to listen to why someone is trying to blow you up”.

So, we have to ask: Is Barack Obama, a man quite likely to be President of the United States, comfortable with an important donor who believes that Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein and that bin Laden may have had good reason to murder 3,000 Americans?

Or are you warming up the bus for another throw-under, O Prophet of the New Politics?

No one holds candidates responsible for a few lunatics drawn to their campaign. All national campaigns are going to collect a few. But they should never be allowed to reach a prominent place, and should be cut off as soon as they’re discovered. For example, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr told the neo-Nazis of Stormfront to keep their money and go straight to Hell. The McCain campaign disavowed a conservative talk-show host who, at a campaign rally, kept taking cheap shots at Obama’s middle name. (Yes, my fellow Righties, I think Cunningham was out of line.)

The Obama campaign, on the other hand, appears distressingly comfortable with supporters who loathe the country he wants to lead. When questioned about them, he first denies their importance, then attacks the media for even mentioning the matter, and then claims he or she “wasn’t the person I knew” as he finally jettisons them.

There’s an old saying: “Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are.”

What do Obama’s friends tell us about him? Thinking

(hat tip: Hot Air)

America is the greatest sin against God

June 2, 2008

Don’t take my word for it. Just listen to one of the Barack Obama’s "spiritual mentors," Father Michael Pfleger:


One questionable associate I can write off. But in recent months we’ve been treated to Tony "the fixer" Rezko, unrepentant former terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Reverend Jeremiah "Whitey created AIDS" Wright, and now Father Pfleger.

Okay, this is just a distraction from the quest for hope and change (and waffles), and it really doesn’t help Michelle’s children, but I have to ask:

At just what point can we question your judgment, O Prophet?

(hat tip: Hot Air)

LINKS: Burt Prelutsky adds Michelle Obama to the list of questionable associates.

Our worst ex-president, one in a series

May 26, 2008

The Nobel Anti-Bush Peace Prize winner should have his passport revoked, just for being a senile, old embarrassment.

Lawhawk has the latest details: Mouth of the South opens mouth, inserts foot again.

UPDATE: Doug Ross provides us with a crucial tool for these troubled times: the Jimmy Carter Threat Level Advisory System. Don’t leave home without it. (hat tip: Fausta)


The company you keep, one in a series

April 23, 2008

Power Line has more on the Prophet Barack’s friends and supporters, unrepentant former terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. In this case, audio clips of both damning the United States in no uncertain terms in 2007, twelve years after they had become associates and supporters of Obama.

So, Senator Obama has worked with Ayers and Dohrn since he entered politics in 1995, and for 20 years attended a church headed by the racist, America-damning Reverend Wright, whom Obama has described as a "spiritual mentor."

Since Obama has made character and judgment key selling points of his candidacy, what conclusions are we to draw?


LINKS: More at Hot Air, which covers Dohrn’s career as an accessory to armed robbery and murder.

UPDATE: Power Line has posted more of Ayers’ and Dohrn’s " greatest hits. Remember, the Prophet Barack, while distancing himself from their activities in the 60s and 70s (for which he can’t be held responsible, of course), he has defended them as now being "part of the mainstream" and "respectable." Keep that in mind, listen to the clips, and ask what that tells you about Obama.

Now playing

March 31, 2008

The latest from Palestinian children’s TV, which brought you such wonders as Farfur the Fascist Mouse, Nahoul the anti-Semitic Killer Bee, and Assud the Jew-eating Rabbit. This time, a puppet show in which an unnamed little boy stabs President Bush to death and turns the White House into a mosque. (Transcript here.)

Child: There are no guards, and your people have surrendered, Bush. I have not come alone, Bush. I have brought thousands of thousands of children from Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. You have denied all these children their fathers and mothers. That’s why I have come to take revenge on you and on all the criminal traitors who collaborated with you.

Bush: Okay, fine, that’s enough. I will give you whatever you want from me.

Child: What can you give me? All I want is one thing. Bring back my father and mother. I don’t want anything from you. I don’t want anything from you, just bring back my father and mother. I place my trust in Allah. I need to kill you.

Bush: No, my dear. Enough. I will give you anything you want. I also… Enough with that. Come with all your friends to the White House. I will give you food and toys. We will sit in the White House and talk. You will get whatever you need.

Child: You are impure, Bush, so you are not allowed inside the White House.

Bush: What are you saying?! Why am I not allowed into the White House?

Child: Because it has been turned into a great mosque for the nation of Islam. I will kill you just like Mu’az killed Abu Lahab. I will kill you, Bush, because that is your fate.

Child stabs Bush repeatedly

Child: Ahhh, I killed him.

This is how the death society educates its children. This twisted garbage is what it teaches its next generation of ammunition leaders.

Let’s give them their own state, shall we? 

(hat tip: Hot Air)

LINKS: Abe Greenwald notices a flaw in the script.

Can’t spin this

March 16, 2008

Jennifer Rubin on Obama’s “pastor problem:”

Many conservatives may be concerned that somehow the liberal media will sweep the last couple of days’ events under the rug and Obama will sail on. As exemplified by the ABC panel, I see no substantial risk of this happening. Once Americans saw and heard Wright’s remarks, we went beyond the ability of even the most dogged partisans in the media to spin it in a way that would extract their favored candidate from the predicament he is in.

This is not an extraneous point of policy or something beyond the ability of average people to assess. Millions of voters go to church and synagogue and don’t hear this sort of venomous talk, and would leave if they did. Everyone can ask themselves: If he went to Wright’s church for 20 years, how likely is it that he heard this stuff, and what does his continued attendance say about him? It simply isn’t possible to wish it all away and hope voters don’t notice.

This isn’t going away, folks. No matter how much the True Believers in Hope and Change intone the Prophet’s name.

Technorati tags: ,

More on Obama and Rev. Wright

March 16, 2008

Following up on yesterday’s post, let me direct you to Mark Steyn’s analysis of Obama’s dilemma — Obama’s pastor disaster:

I’m not a believer in guilt by association, or the campaign vaudeville of rival politicians insisting this or that candidate dissociate himself from remarks by some fellow he had a 30-second grip’n’greet with a decade ago. But Jeremiah Wright is not exactly peripheral to Barack Obama’s life. He married the Obamas and baptized their children. Those of us who made the mistake of buying the senator’s latest book, “The Audacity Of Hope,” and assumed the title was an ingeniously parodic distillation of the great sonorous banality of an entire genre of blandly uplifting political writing discovered circa page 127 that in fact the phrase comes from one of the Rev. Wright’s sermons. Jeremiah Wright has been Barack Obama’s pastor for 20 years – in other words, pretty much the senator’s entire adult life. Did Obama consider “God Damn America” as a title for his book but it didn’t focus-group so well?

Ah, well, no, the senator told ABC News. The Rev. Wright is like “an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.” So did he agree with goofy old Uncle Jeremiah on Sept. 16, 2001? That Sunday morning, Uncle told his congregation that the United States brought the death and destruction of 9/11 on itself. “We nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” said the Rev. Wright. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards.”

Is that one of those “things I don’t always agree with”? Well, Sen. Obama isn’t saying, responding merely that he wasn’t in church that morning. OK, fair enough, but what would he have done had he happened to have shown up on Sept. 16? Cried “Shame on you!” and stormed out? Or, if that’s a little dramatic, whispered to Michelle that he didn’t want their daughters hearing this kind of drivel while rescue workers were still sifting through the rubble and risen from his pew in a dignified manner and led his family to the exit? Or would he have just sat there with an inscrutable look on his face as those around him nodded?

These are questions that just aren’t going to go away, no matter how the senator tries to soft-shoe it.


The Goracle speaks!

December 14, 2007

Power Line quotes former Vice-President and current Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Al Gore bashing the United States for standing in the way of the world’s efforts to fight the (supposed) problem of global warming by not signing the Kyoto Farce Treaty. It’s a good thing Al-baby doesn’t let the facts stand in the way of his narrative, for the numbers tell a different story:

  • Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
  • Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
  • Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
  • Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.  Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers.  (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)

  • Maldives, 252%.
  • Sudan, 142%.
  • China, 55%.
  • Luxembourg, 43%
  • Iran, 39%.
  • Iceland, 29%.
  • Norway, 24%.
  • Russia, 16%.
  • Italy, 16%.
  • Finland, 15%.
  • Mexico, 11%.
  • Japan, 11%.
  • Canada, 8.8%

Global warming isn’t science: it’s a religion, and The Goracle is its high priest, demanding blind faith.

LINKS: Blue Crab Boulevard has more about the agenda of the Cult of Global Warming here and here.

Speaking of giving thanks

November 19, 2007

Mark Steyn reminds the rest of the world it should give thanks for America:

So Americans should be thankful they have one of the last functioning nation-states. Europeans, because they’ve been so inept at exercising it, no longer believe in national sovereignty, whereas it would never occur to Americans not to. This profoundly different attitude to the nation-state underpins, in turn, Euro-American attitudes to transnational institutions such as the United Nations.

But on this Thanksgiving the rest of the world ought to give thanks to American national sovereignty, too. When something terrible and destructive happens – a tsunami hits Indonesia, an earthquake devastates Pakistan – the United States can project itself anywhere on the planet within hours and start saving lives, setting up hospitals and restoring the water supply.

Aside from Britain and France, the Europeans cannot project power in any meaningful way anywhere. When they sign on to an enterprise they claim to believe in – shoring up Afghanistan’s fledgling post-Taliban democracy – most of them send token forces under constrained rules of engagement that prevent them doing anything more than manning the photocopier back at the base.

If America were to follow the Europeans and maintain only shriveled attenuated residual military capacity, the world would very quickly be nastier and bloodier, and far more unstable. It’s not just Americans and Iraqis and Afghans who owe a debt of thanks to the U.S. soldier but all the Europeans grown plump and prosperous in a globalized economy guaranteed by the most benign hegemon in history.

You’re welcome.

It’s OK to bomb America and, by the way, democracy is bad

November 7, 2007

That sums up the view of Abu Bakr Ba’shir, an Indonesian cleric whom you might remember as the "spiritual leader" of the group behind the Bali bombings of 2002. In an interview with al-Arabiya TV, he says it’s OK set off bombs in America, but not in Muslim countries:

In my opinion, it was wrong to carry out the bombings in Morocco, for example. I am against the bombings in Indonesia, particularly in Bali, because Indonesia is not in a state of war. In my opinion, one should be fighting the infidels in Indonesia by means of Jihad of the tongue – by preaching. Nevertheless, I’m still convinced that [the bombers] are mujahideen, not terrorists, but I believe they were wrong in their judgment.


I do not accept their concept of independent judgment, unless the bombing is carried out in the countries of the infidels who declared war against the Muslims, such as America. America has declared war on the Muslims, and therefore, we are permitted to carry out bombings there, because they are the ones who declared war against the Muslims.

So he’s against the bombings in Indonesia, yet he’s the guy who inspired it. Next thing you know, he’ll be trying to sell me a bridge…

And about that "they declared war on us part." Hmmm. We came to the aid of the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo, fighting wars for both. We came to the aid of the Muslims of Somalia in their civil war, and the Muslims of Indonesia after the Boxing Day tidal wave. In 1990-91, we fought to free Muslim Kuwait from Saddam’s secular tyranny and conquest. In 2003, we liberated all of Iraq itself from Saddam.

Damn, we’re oppressive. You’re right, Sheikh. Those attacks on 9-11 were a just retaliation for all the evil we’ve inflicted on the Muslim world. Go ahead, bomb us some more, we deserve it.


On a more serious note, the following quote on democracy illustrates why negotiation and appeasement of Islamists is impossible:

Democracy is not an Islamic means. Democracy runs counter to Islam, because it emphasizes the sovereignty of the people, whereas Islam emphasizes the sovereignty of Allah. Thus, if we are to submit to the law of Allah, Muslims have no choice but to say: "We hear and obey." In democracy, Allah’s commands may be open to discussion, and if we agree with them, we accept them, but if we do not agree with them, we reject them. Herein lies the flaw.

You can’t make it plainer than that. To a devout Salafist Muslim, democracy is an insult to God, based on the the Qu’ran. That’s why al-Qaeda so fears the American democracy project in Iraq: if democratic, consensual government takes root in the heart of the ancient Near East, in Islam’s birthplace, they’re finished.

And theocratic fascists like Abu Bakr Ba’shir will have to go back to the rocks they crawled out from under.

LINKS: You can see the video of the interview at MEMRI, but the active-x control there seems to have problems with Firefox. You can also see it at Little Green Footballs.