To be Black and a Tea Partier…

April 17, 2011

Makes one doubleplusungood, apparently:

It seems these exemplars of Our Betters on the Left (all bow) didn’t get the memo about the new, more civil tone their leaders demanded of us all* in the wake of the Giffords shooting. I’m sure they’re sorry and won’t ever let it happen again.†

via Legal Insurrection

LINKS: My blog-buddy ST has further examples of New Tone Patriotism in action.

*Actually, no they didn’t. Those sanctimonious hypocrites such as Pelosi, Dean, and Matthews really only demanded conservatives shut up. Because that’s the only argument they have left.

†And if you believe that one…

Advertisements

Ground Zero Mosque: should CBS have rejected this ad?

July 7, 2010

CBS has refused to air the following ad from the National Republican Trust, which I assume is a  Republican Party-affiliated group, opposing the construction of a large mosque just yards from Ground Zero, the site of the most devastating of the September 11th attacks. Before commenting further, I’ll let you watch it. Tito, roll tape!

It’s powerful and intense, no doubt. And anyone who’s followed this blog knows my feelings about Islam and the jihad against the West. And I do oppose building that mosque. But two questions remain.

Does this ad cross the line into religious prejudice and smear Muslims in general? No, I think it stays just this side of that. The message it conveys is true: there is a religiously-inspired war against us, that war is being fought in the name of Islam’s god and for the supremacy of Islam, and the massacre of 3,000 of us was launched by a Muslim group and carried out by Muslims for Allah’s sake:

Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

(Qur’an sura 9, verse 111)

It’s also true that a mosque is a symbol of conquest and the supremacy of Islam. To place one at Ground Zero would be interpreted inevitably in the Islamic world as a victory marker. So the ad is right to object for this reason, too.

The other question revolves around CBS’s right to refuse to carry it. Recalling what’s happened in the last few years when someone has “offended Islam” (riots against cartoons, the murder of a filmmaker, a professor getting his hands cut off for asking the wrong question), one can understand if the managers there are afraid of the reaction to this ad. And they are a publicly-traded private company and can freely choose which commercials to accept and which to reject. So I think Big Peace is wrong to characterize this as a “ban,” which implies censorship. The ad is free to run elsewhere, such as YouTube.

But I still wish they had accepted it, because this ad raises important issues for both New York City and the nation that should be freely discussed. I suspect its rejection was born largely of fear, and it is the resulting surrender of the right of free speech and the tacit acceptance of dhimmitude that makes CBS’ rejection wrong. The corporation has both a moral duty and a self-interest in the defense of that right, and it should change its mind and run the ad.


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)


The jihad against free speech

March 28, 2010

Typical of fascists and other would-be dictators, Islamic supremacists use intellectual bullying and physical violence to stifle criticism and cow opposition to the spread of sharia law in free lands. The hope is that enough shouts of “racist” and “Islamophobe,” coupled with acts of violence and murder, will intimidate non-Muslims into submission and self-censorship.

Islamist Watch has a good article on this, using the furor over the Muhammad cartoons as an example of the path to submission and dhimmitude:

Islamists do not wish to debate their opponents; they wish to silence them. This means demonstrating the high costs, whether legal or physical, of speaking out. Recent news items show how the fear of violence can drive capitulation — and, therefore, how violent Islamism can advance, rather than inhibit, the work of stealthy, nonviolent Islamists to crush free speech.

Following the global riots of 2006 and a flare-up two years later, caricatures of Muhammad once again are stirring jihadist passions. Two Chicago-area Muslims were charged last October with planning terror strikes against those involved in the publication of the Danish Muhammad cartoons. New Year’s Day then saw an attack on the home of Kurt Westergaard, creator of the infamous bomb-in-the-turban illustration.

Read the whole thing; the author has many good examples. For another, have a look at this article on Islamic lawfare, the use by Islamic supremacists in the courts and international law to criminalize and punish those who would speak against them.