Castro: Tea Party means fascism for America

November 18, 2010

Call it a contrary endorsement: if this bloody-handed dictator is against the Tea Party movement, it must be a good thing:

Speaking to a group of students visiting Havana, former Cuban leader Fidel Castro accused the Tea Party of leading the United States towards “fascism.”

In his comments, Castro chided the United States as a “ruined nation” and derided the Tea Party as “extreme right.”

Forgetting for a moment that fascism is a product of the Left and is the opposite of everything the Tea Party stands for, I just have this sneaking feeling that, given their choice, many Cubans would prefer a Tea rather than a Communist Party, right about now.

(via Mark Hemingway)


Jihadist Muslims force US cartoonist into hiding

September 16, 2010

Fatwa this!

The Religion of Tolerance again shows that “irony” has real meaning: Because of threats against her life by Muslims outraged* over her suggestion that everyone draw cartoons of Muhammad to show support for freedom of speech, Seattle political cartoonist Molly Norris has been forced to abandon her identity and go into hiding:

You may have noticed that Molly Norris‘ comic is not in the paper this week. That’s because there is no more Molly.

The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, “going ghost”: moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program—except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab. It’s all because of the appalling fatwa issued against her this summer, following her infamous “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” cartoon.

We’re told again and again that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, yet, again and again, people are forced to go into hiding or get police protection because they have dared to criticize Islam and have been threatened by Muslims: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Lars Vilks, Salman Rushdie, and a bunch of Danish cartoonists, among others, all now run a real risk of being killed and have to live a life on the run. And they’re not just being paranoic “Islamophobes:” the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was gunned down by a Muslim and was stabbed and had his throat slit while begging for his life. All for exercising the liberty of free speech that is our inalienable, natural right.

Apologists will again try to tell us that what happened to Norris was just the work of a tiny minority of extremists who don’t represent the real Islam. (And is that true for Hirsi Ali, Vilks, van Gogh, and all the others, too?) Forget it. The Qur’an tells us that Muhammad is a perfect example for all mankind: his actions define what is moral. Thus the killing of those who criticize Islam carries the imprimatur of Muhammad, himself. While there are many, many Muslims who are rightfully horrified and embarrassed by moments like this, it is without doubt that those Muslims who threaten and act against critics of Islam are just following the path of Islam’s prophet.

I truly hope Ms. Norris, whatever she is calling herself now, has a concealed carry permit, a weapon, and knows how to use it, because it’s all too likely she will have to.

*(What else is new?)

LINKS: More from Sister Toldjah, who asks “How would the media react if Christians had made this threat?” Good question. Also Big Peace and at The Sundries Shack.


Imam Rauf: building bridges to where, exactly? -UPDATED

August 23, 2010

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam at the center of the controversy over the mosque proposed for Ground Zero in New York City, has claimed he is a man of moderation, a bridge-builder between Islam and America, between Muslims and Americans of other faiths. He wants to show that Islam and the Muslims can be a part of America’s democratic society.

Praising Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran’s theocratic fascist dictatorship is a funny way to do that, however. Soon after the fraudulent Iranian elections of 2009, he wrote, as reported by Michael Ledeen:

He proclaimed that calm had returned to Iran, and that the “official” results–Ahmadinejad in a landslide–were correct.  Indeed, the whole system, according to Imam Rauf, is admirable:

  • The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was in part to depose the shah, who had come to power in 1953 after a CIA-sponsored coup overthrew democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossaddeq. And in part it was an opportunity to craft an Islamic state with a legitimate ruler according to Shia political theory.
  • After the revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took the Shiite concept of the Rightly Guided Imam and created the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, which means the rule of the jurisprudent. This institutionalizes the Islamic rule of law. The Council of Guardians serves to ensure these principles.


(…)

  • (Obama’s) administration understands that what is going on now in Iran is an attempt by the Iranian people to live up to their own ideals. Just as American democracy developed over many years, the United States recognizes that this election is part of the process of an evolving democracy in Iran.


That’s pure appeasement of Iranian tyranny.

So, then, just where does this bridge Imam Rauf wants to build lead?

UPDATE: From the horse’s… mouth. Tell me again this guy is a moderate? On what scale?

As Jim Geraghty puts it:

…to suggest that the indirect effects of a U.S. sanctions regime is remotely morally comparable to al-Qaeda’s deliberate mass murder – much less to suggest that they are morally worse – is to eviscerate one’s claim to be moderate, pro-American, or sensible. He says it is a “difficult subject to discuss with Western audiences.” Does he ever wonder why?


The thugocracy in action

May 23, 2010

Writing in Fortune, journalist Nina Easton recounts a frightening incident as SEIU members, brought to her neighborhood to protest Bank of America’s home foreclosures, invaded the property of one of her neighbors and terrorized a teen trapped within:

Last Sunday, on a peaceful, sun-crisp afternoon, our toddler finally napping upstairs, my front yard exploded with 500 screaming, placard-waving strangers on a mission to intimidate my neighbor, Greg Baer. Baer is deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), a senior executive based in Washington, D.C. And that — in the minds of the organizers at the politically influential Service Employees International Union and a Chicago outfit called National Political Action — makes his family fair game.

Waving signs denouncing bank “greed,” hordes of invaders poured out of 14 school buses, up Baer’s steps, and onto his front porch. As bullhorns rattled with stories of debtor calls and foreclosed homes, Baer’s teenage son Jack — alone in the house — locked himself in the bathroom. “When are they going to leave?” Jack pleaded when I called to check on him.

Baer, on his way home from a Little League game, parked his car around the corner, called the police, and made a quick calculation to leave his younger son behind while he tried to rescue his increasingly distressed teen. He made his way through a din of barked demands and insults from the activists who proudly “outed” him, and slipped through his front door.

“Excuse me,” Baer told his accusers, “I need to get into the house. I have a child who is alone in there and frightened.”

This is nothing but naked gangsterism and fascism, not legitimate protest. I’d say these union thugs and bullies should be ashamed, but I doubt they know the meaning of the word. And shame on the cops for not moving to protect Baer’s property and family. They should resign for being disgraces to the badge they wear. (Update: DC cops escorted the SEIU to Baer’s house? WTF?)

Of course, SEIU will say they’re fighting for the little guy in a time of desperate need, but what a coincidence it is that SEIU is in debt up to its eyeballs with Bank of America and, in fact, owes them $4,000,000 in interest and fees.

I’m sure that had nothing to do with their choice of target.  Thinking

Ironically, Baer is a lifelong Democrat who worked for the Clinton administration, while his wife was an aide to Hillary Clinton. If this is how SEIU treats its friends….

And let’s not forget that SEIU worked hard to elect President Obama and is a strong supporter of progressive Democrats in general. Since SEIU has been involved in beatings and is known to advocate the “persuasion of power,”  what does that tell us about those who choose to ally with them?

That maybe they’re well-suited to each other.

(via Power Line)


It’s draw Muhammad day!

May 20, 2010

My favorite new holiday of the year!

For background and a reason why.

And, since I can’t draw worth a tinker’s cuss, enjoy instead the most famous of the Dread Muhammad Cartoons of Blasphemy:

While he (or she?) largely oversimplifies the intellectual history of the West, I totally agree with Zombie in the sentiment.

Oh, and Muhammad’s favorite wife was six when they married, nine when he consummated that marriage. Let’s see, that makes him a… Hmm, gotta think about this… Oh, yeah! That makes Muhammad a pedophile!

Do I finally get a fatwa?

LINKS: More at Gateway Pundit, Fausta, Mark Steyn, Bookworm Room, The HayrideIowahawk, Jihad Watch, and Red State.


The Poet Versus the Prophet

May 17, 2010

There’s a great essay at Reason by Mark Goldblatt, who’s sick to death of Western society’s cowardice (disguised as “political correctness”) in the face of jihadist, fascist Islam:

I’ve had a couple of weeks now to think about [Allen] Ginsberg cursing out that cabbie, and cursing out Islam and Muhammad. You see, I live in Manhattan, three blocks from Times Square. As near as I can determine, I was walking with a friend about thirty feet from the car bomb on May 1st right around the time it was supposed to detonate. Except for the technical incompetence of a Muslim dirtbag named Faisal Shahzad, I and my friend would likely be dead now. Note the phrase: “Muslim dirtbag.” Neither term by itself accounts for the terrorist act he attempted to perpetrate; both terms, however, are equally complicit in it. It might have been a crapshoot of nature and nurture that wrought a specimen like Shahzad, but it was Islam that inspired him, that gave his fecal stain of a life its depth and its justification. Why is that so difficult to admit?

Read the whole thing. The closing line deserves a standing ovation.

(via The Jawa Report)

UPDATE: And speaking of cowardice, take it away, Attorney General Eric Holder! And then there’s Michael Barone’s analysis.


Islamic tolerance in action

May 11, 2010

All the man did was draw a mediocre satirical cartoon of Muhammad’s head on the body of a dog, yet, for that, Lars Vilks has lived for years now in fear of his life. And today, someone shouting “Allahu Akbar” attacked him:

I’m willing to bet the attacker wasn’t Episcopalian.

As Allahpundit observed:

Note to Trey Parker and Matt Stone: If you haven’t hired full-time bodyguards yet, this is your wake-up call.

But don’t you dare say Islam isn’t a religion of peace.  Not talking


And the Left says Tea-Partiers are dangerous?

April 13, 2010

A Republican activist and her boyfriend were savagely beaten in New Orleans, purportedly for wearing Sarah Palin pins.

We’ll see if the major media covers this. Waiting

*crickets*

RELATED: It wouldn’t be the first time something like this has happened.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin posts a caution and reports that Palin pins weren’t present, per the Louisiana governor’s office. The governor himself, for whom the female victim works, says there is no evidence yet that Left-wing protesters were involved.


Greenpeace reveals its inner fascist thug

April 4, 2010

One sign of a fanatic is that he can’t handle serious disagreement: rather than continue with a rational argument, he threatens violence to intimidate his opponents into silence. You know, fanatics like Greenpeace members:

Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: “The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.”

The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.

If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.

If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

And we be many, but you be few.

(Emphasis added)

Unable to deal with empirical evidence that contradicts his precious faith, willfully blind to the inability of his sacred computer models to predict anything or even account for the past, holding his hands to his ears and screaming NONONONONONO!!! when confronted with indisputable proof of, at least, sloppy science or, at worst, out and out corruption in the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming, all “Gene from Greenpeace” can do is threaten physical violence.

This isn’t science and it’s not a quest for truth or even what’s best for all. No, it’s an arrogance and hubris born of a belief that a tiny group knows the collective good, even if the individuals of that “collective” disagree. If they continue to disagree, then those recalcitrant “deniers” have to be silenced by threats or even direct action. It’s a common trait among “progressive activists.”

In a word, it’s fascism.

Greenpeace needs to cut ties with all its “Genes,” now, if it wants to retain any respectability. If it doesn’t, then remember that the next time they come asking for money.

(via James Delingpole)


Obama’s fascist SOTU speech

February 8, 2010

When modern Americans think of fascism, in our mind’s eye we picture it in its most brutal, almost cartoonish form: jackbooted Nazis in black uniforms crushing all before them, or Mussolini haranguing his fascisti:

"I promise to lead us into total disaster!"

But fascism is more than just cool uniforms (You have to admit, the Nazis did have a sense of evil sartorial style.) and a boot to the throat, though thuggishness is in its nature. It’s also a philosophy that claims to get “beyond politics” by bringing everyone together in unity behind a leader who personifies the nation and knows its will better than the average man or woman. It promises to care for the individual from cradle to grave, in the process transforming a free citizen into a dependent, and the individual with rights into part of a group that has rights superseding the individual’s. If all of this rings a bell, it should: the brutal European fascisms we fought against in the middle of the last century (and their related communist totalitarianisms) share intellectual roots with American progressivism, what is called in today’s US politics “liberalism.” (More correctly, “conservatives” in America are largely classical liberals, and “liberals” are progressives.)  Jonah Goldberg has written a brilliant, eye-opening book on the topic, Liberal Fascism, that I can’t recommend highly enough.

To come round to President Obama’s State of the Union address, Ben Shapiro (who has some strange ideas about overrated directors) penned an article for Human Events that looks at the speech as something squarely in the tradition of liberal fascism – Obama’s Philosophically Fascist State of the Union Address:

There sure is something different about President Obama. Usually, the State of the Union address is a laundry list of proposals spiced with sycophantic applause and dipped in an admixture of boredom and bravado. It is rarely a statement of basic philosophy.

Not for President Obama.

President Obama’s State of the Union address was the greatest American rhetorical embrace of fascist trope since the days of Woodrow Wilson. I am not suggesting Obama is a Nazi; he isn’t. I am not suggesting that he is a jackbooted thug; he isn’t (even if we could be forgiven for mistaking Rahm Emanuel for one).

President Obama is, however, a man who embodies all the personal characteristics of a fascist leader, right down to the arrogant chin-up head tilt he utilizes when waiting for applause. He sees democracy as a filthy process that can be cured only by the centralized power of bureaucrats. He sees his presidency as a Hegelian synthesis marking the end of political conflict. He sees himself as embodiment of the collective will. No president should speak in these terms — not in a representative republic. Obama does it habitually.

Click through for the rest. The author’s occasional snark aside, I think he pretty much nails it.

(via neo-neocon)


Britain has a big problem

October 29, 2009

Two articles at Pajamas Media explore the rise of the fascist British National Party (BNP). In British National Party Gains Further After BBC’s Question Time Fiasco, Andrew Ian Dodge looks at the attempted ambush of BNP leader Nick Griffin on the BBC show Question Time, during which the other panelists and a stacked-deck of an audience attempted to harangue and humiliate Griffin as anti-BNP demonstrators rioted outside. While not showing any sympathy for the execrable Griffin, Dodge observes that the effort may well have backfired and quotes a UK blogger as evidence:

As the average English person dislikes people ganging up on others, they are already expressing sympathy with Griffin and I predict that the popularity of the BNP will rise.

Before you can show up a policy you have to debate it, and not one of the other so-called politicians [on the panel] had any intention of engaging in a debate. It was a set-up, it was despicable and it was enormously counter-productive.

In my neck of the woods the comments go more like “if they spent so much time trying to shut him up, he must have summat to say they don’t want us to hear.”

In Britain’s New Neo-Nazi Star, Mike McNally looks at Griffin’s rise and speculates on the reasons for the BNP’s newfound strength:

The BNP speaks to the white working classes, a constituency which feels increasingly alienated, neglected, and abandoned by a “New” Labour party which once drew the bulk of its support from those same people. In broad terms, these are people who feel left behind by the pace of social and economic change. They are concerned about the erosion of what they see as their British identity under a government obsessed with promoting multiculturalism. More pressingly, they feel under pressure from mass immigration, angered by the continuing transfer of political power away from their elected leaders and into the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats of the European Union, concerned by rising crime, and alarmed by the spread of Islamic extremism.

The last time the far right (to use the term in its broadest and laziest sense) made inroads into British political life, in the 1970s, they were killed off by the arrival of Margaret Thatcher, who stood up for British interests and addressed the  concerns of the working classes without pandering to racist attitudes. The economic chaos that accompanied the fall of the Labour government in 1979 was exploited by racist and nationalist groups, and it’s no coincidence that now, as then, such elements are growing in popularity during the death throes of a Labour administration.

McNally’s going easy on himself by calling the designation of the BNP as “far right” lazy. It’s flat-out inaccurate: Look at BNP’s economic program and you’ll see that, like Nazism before it, the British National Party is a product of the Left.

Regardless, both authors are right when they argue that the growing popularity, or, at least, respectability, of the BNP represents a failure of the governing classes in Britain to deal with the needs and concerns of their constituents. Indeed, if author Melanie Phillips is right, Labour is guilty of a shockingly high-handed and arrogant attempt to remake the character of the nation – the public’s opinions be damned. But it’s not just Labour; the Conservatives are no longer the Thatcherites of old, but a washed-out Labour-Lite. The Liberal Democrats are barely distinguishable from the other two. Among the minor parties, the UK Independence Party most resembles American conservative-libertarian Right, but it hasn’t gained much traction.  Small wonder that, faced with an out of touch and corrupt political class, more and more Britons (especially disaffected Labourites) are coming to see the openly racist and fascist British National Party as their only alternative.

It’s a big problem, and I suspect it will only get worse before it ever gets better.


Religion of Tolerance Watch

October 28, 2009

Following up on an item I linked yesterday, we now know why over 100 FBI agents -including snipers and helicopters- raided a Muslim slaughterhouse in Illinois: it was linked to a plot to kill 78-years old Kurt Westergaard, author of one of the most well-known of the infamous Muhammed Cartoons:

Two Chicago men charged in terror scheme

When FBI agents at O’Hare arrested David Headley en route to Pakistan earlier this month on charges he plotted to kill a newspaper cartoonist in Denmark, authorities say he held an additional airline reservation – to Copenhagen.

He was to depart Thursday.

Headley’s friend, Tahawwur Hussain Rana, who shared an extreme hatred for cartoons that depicted the prophet Mohammed, arranged for the flight, authorities said.

Any depiction of the prophet, even a favorable one, is forbidden by Islamic law as likely to lead to idolatry.

The Chicago men, who knew each other from a military school in Pakistan, on Tuesday were accused of an international plot dubbed “The Mickey Mouse Project” that since late 2008 included scheming with others to “commit terrorist acts against overseas targets,” according to federal criminal complaints made public in Chicago.

The North Side men are accused of plotting to target employees of the Danish newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, which published cartoons of the prophet Mohammed in 2005, sparking violent riots across the Muslim world.

The most controversial of the 12 cartoons depicted Mohammed wearing a bomb with a lit fuse as a turban. That cartoon was drawn by Kurt Westergaard, 78 – who was targeted for assassination, authorities said.

This is the cartoon in question:

jyllandsposten_bombhead

For this act of free speech, a right we in the West hold to be among the universal, natural rights of Mankind, Mr. Westergaard and Flemming Rose, the editor of the Jyllands-Posten, as well as other staff at the paper were marked for death.

They were to be murdered for offending Islam.

Free speech means nothing unless it means the freedom to criticize and even give offense, for no other kind of speech needs protection. If we renounce our right to criticize or even insult a public figure, a political party, or even a religion –any religion– then free speech is dead, the first amendment is “just words,” and we are all self-made dhimmis living in fear.

Which is exactly what jihadists like David Headley and Tahawwur Hussain Rana want.

(hat tip: Jihad Watch)

RELATED: The original Dread Cartoons Of Blasphemy.


Good question

June 3, 2009

Given my severe skepticism regarding global warming, I’d be interested to know the answer myself:

“At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers — Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?

Dejas-vous all over again

August 21, 2006

Only, in this case, it’s an uncomfortable sense of reliving Europe in the 1930s, not the most reassuring of feelings. Captain Ed quotes an article from Der Spiegel on the attitudes of the Iranian-on-the-street about their fascist government and its pursuit of nuclear weapons. You can read it here: Ignoring the propaganda in Tehran.

Even the Iranian public, like the appeasers in Europe and the wannabe European appeasers in the Democratic Party –and some in the current Administration!– keep fooling themselves that Iran is a rational political actor, that, if one just has enough dialog, a deal can be cut with the mullahs. The same mullahs who installed a messianic lunatic like Ahmadinejad as President, the same who have played Europe for suckers while bragging about it in their own magazines and who rail against democracy and predict the victory of Islam over the world. But, as the Spiegel article shows, the Iranians don’t want to believe the mullahs really believe what they’re saying. Just like the Germans of the 1930s.

The world made the mistake of not taking Hitler at his word, and it cost 50,000,000 dead. How many will it cost, this time?