Islamofascism

Around the Web

Calvin Freiburger abortion, capitalism, Chris Christie, college, conservatism, education, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Islamofascism, Maher, NewsReal, O'Reilly, philanthropy, Planned Parenthood, Tea Party

Chris Christie’s won the hearts of many conservatives for standing up to charlatans in the public education establishment, but does even he have a dark side? Maybe – Jonathan Tobin has the scoop on Christie’s recent judicial appointment of Sohail Mohammed, who has represented radical Islamists in the past. Consider this a shining example of why I say we shouldn’t be too quick to anoint standard-bearers.

“An unprecedented study that followed several thousand undergraduates through four years of college found that large numbers didn’t learn the critical thinking, complex reasoning and written communication skills that are widely assumed to be at the core of a college education.” Surprised? Me neither.

My NRB colleague Walter Hudson explains how Twilight star Kristin Stewart’s plan to set up a halfway house network to help women escape prostitution is only possible because we let people get rich in this country. Love Twilight or hate it (I’ve neither read the books nor seen the movies), you’ve gotta give Stewart credit for this.

Also on NewsReal, Joseph Klein takes issue with Bill O’Reilly going easy on Bill Maher for bashing the Tea Party. It never ceases to amaze me that O’Reilly has a reputation as some right-wing fire breather, considering that he gives passes to abominable liberals all the time, and his definition of “stand-up guy” is basically “anyone willing to come on my show.”

Rep. Steve King wants to get to the bottom of whether or not your federal tax dollars are paying for Planned Parenthood’s telehealth services.

Thoughts on 9/11

Calvin Freiburger 9/11, appeasement, evil, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Islamofascism, national tragedies, War on Terror

On September 11, I was still in middle school. Around the middle of an otherwise-unremarkable school day, we began to hear unsettling murmurs of a plane hitting a skyscraper somewhere. Near the end of the day, our English teacher told us that it was the World Trade Center, and two planes had been deliberately rammed into it, causing the towers to collapse and kill God knows how many people.

It was a sickening wake-up call. Such monstrosities simply didn’t happen on American soil outside of the movies. I had been starting to develop a mild interest in politics prior to 9/11 (due in large part to abortion), but the sudden death of 3,000 civilians for nothing more than getting on a plane or showing up to work in the morning drove home the urgency of political involvement. It wasn’t just far-away bickering; what our country did or didn’t do could have serious real-world implications. I was no soldier, but if I could use the skills I did have to prevent this from happening to anyone else again, I was in.

Nine years later, the political landscape isn’t as neatly divided between right and wrong, problem and solution as it once seemed – as admirably steadfast as he was in the beginning, George W. Bush’s execution of the Iraq War and his failure to root out political correctness in the military may have disastrous long-term ramifications for the war, and the libertarian trends in the Tea Party movement are threatening to take the Right’s eye off the ball entirely. Even so, the broad strokes are still there:

Either we believe in fighting those who wish us harm, or we don’t.

Either we believe in denying them the means to cause mass destruction, or we don’t.

Either we believe in honestly examining their motives – including religious – or we don’t.

Either we understand that endlessly talking to the irrational is itself irrational, or we don’t.

Either we understand that those who want us dead will accept no concession other than our death, or we don’t.

Either we see 9/11 for what it was – pure, unadulterated evil – and understand the ramifications for our future, or we don’t. 

We don’t need new investigations into what “really” happened. We don’t need hand-wringing about whether or not we deserved it in some way, or whether or not we’re becoming the bad guys in response. We don’t need to keep indulging those who insist on lying about us and about our enemies. We simply need to ask ourselves whether or not we’re prepared to pay any price or bear any burden to prevent it from happening again.

John Guardiano Responds, Fails (Updated)

Calvin Freiburger Andy McCarthy, conservatism, Constitution, David Frum, David Swindle, dishonesty, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Islam, Islamofascism, John Guardiano, NewsReal, religion

As much as I once applauded and cited some of John Guardiano’s work, I could never get over his devotion to the deplorable David Frum, whose dishonesty should repulse all men of goodwill, regardless of political leanings. But his increasingly-hyperbolic attacks on Islam’s critics – including falsely accusing Andy McCarthy of wanting to strip Muslims of First Amendment protection – have confirmed that he and Frum are two peas in a pod.

Guardiano has responded to my post on that point. Since the evidence he originally offered was bogus, he now claims the proof is in McCarthy’s latest book, where McCarthy discusses how Islam is not merely a religion, but also a comprehensive social and political program, and therefore not everything that falls under the banner of “Islam” is constitutionally protected.

The problem, of course, is that McCarthy’s right about both Islam and the general principle that not every “religious” act is covered by freedom of religion. Witch-burning is just one of many things that members of other religions could claim their faith demands; would Guardiano say that by making such an obvious statement, I’m advocating denying First Amendment protection to Puritans? Further, neither statement comes close to claiming that Muslims deserve no religious liberty, or that no aspect of Islam is constitutionally protected.

So, yes, John, you lied about Andy McCarthy, because – like the deranged blowhard you work for – you are psychologically disposed to assume the worst from people who say things the “wrong” way.

I just have three more things to say to John. First, how can you in good conscience write for such a dishonest, demagogic website as FrumForum? Second, as David Swindle has noted, you have yet to clearly demonstrate that your foes’ assessment of Islam is wrong.  Lastly, yes, I believe the Founders would respect Muslims’ true religious liberties, it’s worth noting which assessment of Islam our forefathers would find more accurate. Hint: it’s not yours.

Update: In response, whining about “nastiness.” If I were him, I’d be more concerned about having allied myself with the dishonest “Right” rather than the “vitriolic.”

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

Calvin Freiburger blogosphere, conservatism, dishonesty, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Islam, Islamofascism, NewsReal, Robert Spencer, stupidity

Last month, I wrote a couple of posts on NewsReal criticizing the wisdom of one of my co-bloggers’ calls to “eradicate Islam in the West.” In a nutshell: Islam is a violent, totalitarian religion which needs to be aggressively and honestly confronted, but simply “eradicating” it outright would be not only impossible, but calling for such an eradication would confuse and alienate a heck of a lot of people.

One of my most persistent critics was a commenter using the name “ObamaYoMoma,” whose arguments were as verbose as they were insipid. In a nutshell: The West needs to be totally purged of Islam because it’s not really a religion anyway and therefore the First Amendment doesn’t apply to it.

Those interested can check out the sordid, stupid saga at the links above. Suffice to say, no amount of semantic gymnastics about what is or isn’t a religion can erase the fact that we have a First Amendment, and that according to just about every accepted definition of the term “religion” we have, Islam qualifies. And if you really think you’ll find enough public support, enough of a congressional majority, and elect a president who would support criminalizing an entire religion, plus find so much as a single court in the land who would stand for it…well, let me know how much luck you have.

This week, OYM popped up again on another of my posts, regurgitating the same idiocy. He wouldn’t define exactly what “banning” Islam would entail, nor did he answer my question about whether or not the First Amendment places any limits on what we can justly do to bring about Islam’s “eradication.” Instead, he smugly asserted that I don’t know what Islam is, and that I am “blinded by PC multiculturalism like John Gardiano” (wonder if he knows just how well John and I get along, or that John misrepresented my position on Islam).

Inasmuch as I made perfectly clear where I stand on Islam in each of the very posts OYM commented on, it’s hard to see him as much more than a liar or a buffoon. But to end this skirmish on a semi-productive note, let’s see what Robert Spencer, who OYM claims to be a disciple of, has to say on the subject:

The implications of what I’m saying are very bad. There’s no way to sugarcoat them. But there are precedents. And there are useful ways forward — if we have the courage to face this problem as it truly is.

This is a problem within Islamic teaching, within core Islamic teaching, founded on the Quran. As such, wherever there are Islamic communities, there will be terrorism and efforts to impose elements of Islamic law through peaceful means, to assert the precedence of Islamic law over the laws of the state in which the Muslims happen to be residing. That will always happen.

Now, in 1945, the McArthur government — the occupational government in Japan — issued an edict saying that Shinto (the religion of the Japanese that had fueled Japanese imperial militarism in World War II) would have no interference from the United States’ occupying forces as an expression of individual piety, as the religion of any Japanese citizen. No interference whatsoever from the government. However, Shinto would have no role in the government or in the schools.

The distinction was made — it was imposed from without — that Shinto would have no way to express the political militarism that had led to World War II in the first place.

Now, the United States, Great Britain, Europe, are all facing a very similar problem, with growing Muslim communities asserting political and societal notions that are at variance with our ideas of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of women with men, the equality of rights of all people before the law.

If our governments had the courage to stand up and say that any assertion of these political aspects of Islam that are at variance with our existing laws will be considered to be seditious under existing sedition laws, there would be a tremendous amount of progress made on this problem.

But of course we’re nowhere near that, because we can’t even admit that there are such initiatives going on from the Islamic communities as such.

And so as long as this unrealism persists, then the cognitive dissonance will continue to grow. And as long as the cognitive dissonance continues to grow, so also will the assertiveness and beligerence of the Islamic communities in the West, because they will see that we are not able and not willing to take the decisive steps necessary to do anything serious to stop them.

This is how we should treat Islam (or any religion, for that matter): firm, honest, and uncompromising toward its elements that are incompatible with liberty, but also thoughtful, responsible, and acknowledging legitimate religious rights. Thankfully, nobody with any real power or influence seems to be parroting OYM’s nonsense.

Does David Frum Make His Writers Fulfill a Lie Quota or Something? (UPDATED)

Calvin Freiburger Andy McCarthy, David Frum, dishonesty, FrumForum, Ground Zero Mosque, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Islam, Islamofascism

At ScumForum, John Guardiano has another condescending lecture about how conservatives need to stop being mean to Islam. David Swindle responded to John’s previous effort last week, and overall it suffices as a rebuttal to this one too; go read it.

One detail in particular caught my eye:

National Review’s Andrew McCarthy suggests we might have to reconsider whether the First Amendment ought even to apply to Muslims. After all, he argues, “intolerance is not just part of al-Qaeda; it is part of Islam.”

Woah! A prominent anti-terror conservative advocating a repeal of American Muslims’ First Amendment rights?  Man, if that’s true, National Review ought to fire McCarthy on the spot.

Oh, wait. It’s not true.

In the article Guardiano links, McCarthy makes no mention of the First Amendment at all, much less calls for exempting Muslims from its protections. In fact, McCarthy says:

No one credibly questions the legal right of Muslim landowners to use their property in any lawful fashion. Legality is an irrelevant issue, even if the back-tracking Obama now wants to pretend it is the only one he was really talking about on Friday night. The question here is propriety.

In other words, Guardiano’s lying. Not a shocker – that sort of thing is standard operating procedure at FrumForum.

UPDATE: Guardiano tweets that he’s not lying “at all,” and that details to come later. I look forward to whatever details he’s got, but if McCarthy really did say somewhere that the First Amendment shouldn’t apply to Muslims (a couple of quick Google searches sure haven’t come up with anything, and I have to imagine the Left would be shouting it from the rooftops if it were true), then Guardiano has no excuse for not elaborating or linking to it in the original piece. Basic morality and professionalism should keep people from leveling explosive charges against people if they’re not accompanied by evidence. Guardiano only linked to one example of McCarthy’s words – in which McCarthy expressed the exact opposite of the sentiments attributed to him.

At least John spelled my name right this time. I hear he’s particular about that sort of thing.

The Ground Zero Mosque Controversy Isn’t About "Wisdom"

Calvin Freiburger 9/11, appeasement, dishonesty, Ground Zero Mosque, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Islamofascism, War on Terror

There’s one point about Barack Obama’s equivocating on the Ground Zero mosque I haven’t heard anyone make: by proclaiming that he won’t opine on the “wisdom” of building the mosque, he’s disingenuously suggesting the mosque’s organizers are simply well-meaning folks who don’t know what the big deal is. That, of course, ignores the known extremism of Feisal Abdul Rauf.

Rauf isn’t “unwise.” He knows exactly what he’s doing: marking a site of Islamic victory. And our president either can’t be bothered to familiarize himself with the facts of situations before opining, or he simply doesn’t care. Neither is the mark of a leader.

Around the Web

Calvin Freiburger Barack Obama, Connecticut, David Frum, Dr. Manny Alvarez, gay marriage, Harry Reid, Hispanics, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Islamofascism, judicial activism, politics, Proposition 8, Republican Party, Sarah Palin

At NewsReal, David Swindle asks the disaster-in-chief a darn good question about Islam.

Fox News’s usually-apolitical Dr. Manny Alvarez calls out Dingy Harry on Democrat racial profiling.

More on Prop. 8: Professor Nelson Lund has a good summary of the issue, while Father Roger Landry highlights Vaughn Walker’s ideology and the potential threat to religious liberty in his decision. And has Walker been buttering up Anthony Kennedy all along?

Did…did Connecticut Republicans really just choose the candidate from the WWE to run against a phony Vietnam vet when they had a real Vietnam vet to choose from? Why?

Another Palin hater isn’t quite what she appeared to be. (Hat tip: Ann Coulter)

Gee, what a surprise.

Don’t Rush Out of Afghanistan, Says…Time?

Calvin Freiburger Afghanistan, Democrats, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, Islam, Islamofascism, mainstream media, Time Magazine, War on Terror, women's rights

My fellow NewsReal blogger Jenny Erikson has a powerful post highlighting Time’s latest cover story: “What Happens If We Leave Afghanistan.” Both works confront the horrifying subjugation of Muslim women, demanding to be read in full. Here I’d like to make a different observation: the moral clarity Time is capable of when the commander-in-chief is a Democrat is remarkable, isn’t it?

Conservatism Can’t Survive Without the Pro-Life Movement, Part II

Calvin Freiburger 2010, 2012, abortion, blogosphere, capitalism, conservatism, Constitution, David Swindle, foreign policy, Founding Fathers, Islamofascism, Israel, judicial branch, liberalism, libertarianism, liberty, NewsReal, Republican Party, resercons, War on Terror

In Part I, I argue that it would be politically foolish for the Right to further backpedal or abandon the pro-life cause. Here I want to make the case that the right to life truly is inseparable both from core conservatism and from any meaningful effort to advance conservative ideas—that, in fact, pro-abortion tendencies actually endanger the prospects of those who value limited government, the free market, and strong national defense.

As I explained on June 15, abortion is an affront to the Declaration of Independence. As the unjust taking of a human life, it is wrong for the same reason slavery, theft, assault, honor killings, rape, eminent domain abuse, and individual health insurance mandates are wrong: they are all violations of human liberty and natural rights.  Accordingly, society justly protects its citizens from them via law for the same reason.  As long as conservatism still “holds these truths to be self-evident” that all men have “certain unalienable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and as long as conservatism still accepts that “governments are instituted among men” for the purpose of “secur[ing] these rights,” then philosophically-consistent conservatives have no choice but to oppose legalized abortion. Nobody can support abortion in good conscience without either honestly confronting this conundrum head-on, or asking himself what definition of “conservatism” he’s been operating under all this time.

That pro-choice views are an egregious exception to conservatives’ and libertarians’ pro-liberty rhetoric should be obvious. What may be less obvious—but is no less true—is that such dubious thinking cannot help but undermine other core conservative principles and efforts. Continue reading →

Helen Thomas is Helen Thomas. Film at Eleven.

Calvin Freiburger anti-Semitism, bigotry, foreign policy, Hamas, Helen Thomas, Islamofascism, Israel, liberalism, media, scandal

Yep, Helen Thomas has been saying ugly things about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  I’m with Johan Goldberg:

But beyond that, can we do away with all of the shock and dismay at Thomas’ statement? Spare me Lanny Davis’s wounded outrage. Everyone knows she is a nasty piece of work and has been a nasty piece of work for decades.

And when I say a nasty piece of work, I don’t simply mean her opinions on Israel. She’s been full-spectrum awful. I’ve known a few people who knew her 40 years ago, and she was slimy then too. One small example can be found in James Rosen’s excellent book on John Mitchell, The Strong Man. Mitchell’s wife Martha was a mentally unstable alcoholic who would call reporters to vent sad, paranoid, fact-free theories and diatribes. At first, many reporters were eager to hear her out, but over time it became obvious that Martha Mitchell was not well and it was cruel to exploit her. Obvious, that is, to nearly everyone butHelen Thomas who continued to milk Martha Mitchell for damning quotes and nonsense

[…]

All of these condemnations, equivocations, repudiations, and protestations are all fundamentally silly because they are part of a D.C. Kabuki that treats the last straw as if it was wholly different than the million other straws everyone was happy to carry.

Yawn.