April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Send Money

to BtB

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2004

« New Palestinian City Planned by U.S. | Main | poorpalestinians still trying to kill Jews »

Friday, 03 August 2007

Comments

Marshall
The idea that "the Daily Kos" is anything but hateful is from a different universe than the one I inhabit. Their venom is not confined to only Jews either but to anyone and everyone who disagrees with their extreme leftist views. So the Jew is the cause of all the troubles in the middle east? Nothing to do with a certain religion that starts with "I" and ends in "slam"?
Smooth
Coincidentally, I wrote this week about Daily Kos' Jew-hating Stalinist leader, the putrid Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, here: http://smoothstone.blogspot.com/2007/07/if-there-is-anyone-that-i-would-enjoy.html. This morning, I discovered this site: http://truth-about-kos.blogspot.com/2007/07/indicted-by-facts-having-discovered.html, a site dedicated to dissecting Zuniga and his real agenda, something definitely worth pursuing.
Jarhead68
Smooth....what's with those links you posted? They are GONZO!!!!
Morgan Orlins
I used to post regularly at Alternet 18 mos. ago and I noticed a disturbing trend of anti-Semitism bubbling to the surface. I tried posting at dailykos, but they kept erasing my posts, they said they were "hiding" them, but what's the Stalinist difference? This rise in Jew hatred on the left coincides perfectly with two other trends: The rise in Jewish political conservatism and the growing radicalism on the political left. Does it surprise me? No. Does it pain me? Yes. Morgan Orlins
Smooth
Jarhead, contain yourself. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is under under the microscope, not me.
ZionistYoungster
Jew-hatred just changes form every time. The truly dangerous forms of it are those that are acceptable at a given time, and come in the form of arguments rendering the murder of Jews (G-d forbid) acceptable. It used to be, "It's OK to kill the Jews, they're Christ-killers". Then, when religious argumentation fell out of fashion, it turned to, "It's OK to kill the Jews, they're a sub-human, parasitical race". And now, when both religious and racist excuses are out, post-colonialism is all the rage: "It's OK to kill the Jews, they're stealing lands from the indigenous Palestinians and they're leading the USA to war against the whole world". That last argument is in vogue on the Left, and, when voiced at the official dinner table in London or New York, is bound to garner nods of approval, if not outright applause. Just like the race-based arguments did at the official dinner tables in Berlin in the 1930's. The Marxists aren't, of course, up to the task of Jewish genocide (G-d forbid) themselves; instead, they just delegate it to the Muslims, and support it as "resistance against colonialism" and say the Zionists (modern codeword for "Jews") had it coming. Anyone who says the state of Israel is illegitimate is our enemy. He is either a Nazi (=Muslim) or a Nazi-sympathizer (=Marxist).
 fouse, gary c
The Democrats and Daily Kos This coming weekend, the left-wing blog site, Daily Kos, will be holding its annual convention. More significantly, all of the Democratic candidates for president are planning to attend with the exception of Joe Biden. Bill O'Reilly, who has taken on Daily Kos, accusing it of being a radical left hate site, has made a big issue of the fact that the Democratic candidates are gracing Daily Kos with their presence at the convention. O'Reilly maintains that the candidates are making a huge mistake by aligning themselves with the blog. I am trying to take a more balanced approach to this question, though I am obviously biased as a conservative who has no plans to vote for any of the candidates in question. As a conservative blogger myself, I have sent my imput to several conservative websites. While I don't consider any of them to be hateful, I must admit that some of the co-respondents who post their comments often use intemporate language. I guess some observers would consider some of my own comments to be intemporate at times. Everyone has their own perception. I am no long time observer of Daily Kos. From my limited looks at their website, it is obviously to the left. I can't say, however, that everything that appears on Daily Kos is over the edge. As far as what others post on their site, a good blog that has the resources should monitor what is posted and quickly delete truly offensive material that would bring discredit to the site. There are two items, however, that should really give the Democrat candidates pause. First, a few years back, when four American contractors were brutally murdered, burned and mutilated in Iraq, the creator of Daily Kos, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, proclaimed that he didn't care about the fate of the victims. "Screw 'em", were his words. Secondly, there has recently appeared on Daily Kos, a doctored photo that portrays Senator Joseph Lieberman on his knees unzipping the fly of President Bush, obviously preparing to perform oral sex on the president. This is truly over the edge. The implication of the above two examples of what has appeared on Daily Kos is that the Democratic candidates are about to give the Republicans a huge campaign issue that they will surely put to use. So the question is-why would the candidates, knowing the above, still attend the convention? It seems that the answer lies in the fact that the party is beholden to the far left blogosphere, which is already on record as having stated in effect that they have paid for the party and they own the party. The attendance of Hillary Clinton (who has already been attacked on the blog) and her competitors can only confirm the accusations that they fear the left-wing blogs and dare not offend them. This raises the question- if these candidates for Commander-in-Chief cannot stand up to Daily Kos- how can they stand up to Al Quaida? gary fouse fousesquawk
 fouse, gary c
Anti-Semitism in America and our Universities Being born and raised in West Los Angeles, I lived on a street where most of the families were Jewish. Therefore, it followed that many of my childhood friends were Jewish. Nevertheless, I knew that in those days (1950s), Jews were still often objects of stereotypes and jokes that later faded into unacceptable language. However, it wasn't until I joined the Army in 1966 and found myself stationed in Germany, that I saw the results of anti-Semitism and began to form strong opinions about this phenomena. Germany has continued to be a major part of my life even after my military service there ended. As a result, I have been able to observe (and write) about how the German people have dealt with the Nazi period of their history. With the events in the Middle East, particularly in respect to the on-going Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I have recently observed what I consider to be a resurgence of anti-Jewish feeling in my own country. I feel that, not only must it be confronted, but the finger should be pointed squarely at those who are responsible. First, a little personal background. While in Germany, I was stationed in a small university town called Erlangen, which is located about 20 kilometers north of Nuremberg. Due to its proximity to Erlangen, I got to know Nuremberg quite well and became quite fond of the city due to its old medieval architecture, which was restored to its original style after being destroyed by Allied bombing. However, more than any other German city, with the possible exception of Munich and Berlin, Nuremberg is associated with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. Hitler chose the city as the site of his annual Nazi Party Rallies. During the 1935 Rally, the so-called Nuremberg Laws were announced, which legally relegated Jews to 2nd class citizens in Germany. It was also home to Julius Streicher, the notorious "Jew-Baiter of Nuremberg", who published the anti-Semitic Newspaper-Der Stuermer. (He was hanged at Nuremberg after the war.) Finally, the city was the venue for the War Crimes Trials. To this very day, the city has tried to shake its unsavory image. Most of the sites in Nuremberg that were seen in old Nazi newsreels are still around. The area where the rallies were held is still there, the white marble tribune slowly deteriorating in isolated solitude except for a few curious visitors. The Courthouse where the top Nazis were brought to justice is still used by the city for legal purposes. In addition, the main square, where newsreels show Hitler saluting his marching troops, is still the center of city life. After returning to civilian life in the US, I read everything I could on the Nazi era, becoming sort of an amateur scholar on the subject. In my later overseas travels, I have returned to Germany countless times, often to Erlangen. I have also visited several of the old concentration camps, specifically Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen and Auschwitz (in Poland). To speak of those places making a strong impression on me would be a gross understatement. Suffice to say, all this has made me sensitive to the subject of anti-Semitism. As for Erlangen, my emotional attachment eventually led me to write an English-language history of the city, which was published in 2005 (Erlangen-An American's History of a German Town). My work on the project enabled me to return there in 2004 to do research and in 2006 to promote the book. It was a fascinating experience to learn about the history of a city in which I had lived so many years before-at a time that I did not really think about its history. Now I have learned about Erlangen during the Nazi era. For example, there was a book-burning ceremony there-as in all university towns. During Kristallnacht in 1938, the town's Jewish inhabitants were rounded up and jailed for a few days. Then during the war, the last remaining 20 or so Jewish residents were arrested and shipped east to the extermination camps. Only a handful survived. There was also a Jewish cemetery in Erlangen-or on the outskirts-which I had no knowledge of during my service time there. Through the help of the local Jewish community center, I was able to visit the place-normally locked up under a caretakers supervision. The local Erlangen Jewish Community Center is worth mentioning. Established only in the past two decades, it serves a small community of a few dozen Russian immigrants. During my interview with the community leader, she made a very poignant remark, which, while I must have known was true, had never really thought about. She told me that the word "Jew" (Jude) is, to this day, an emotion-laden word in German. The Nazis did not have to resort to ethnic epithets to describe Jews. Simply the word, usually spoken in a derogatory tone of voice, was enough to make their point. To a somewhat lesser extent, I think this is also true in English (You know the old saying. It's not what you say-it's how you say it.) I keep thinking about this point when I hear some voices in the US refer to Jews-or "Zionist Jews". But enough about Germany. I want to talk now about anti-Semitism here in America. Is it making a comeback? Did it ever go away? People can disagree, but I think there is a growing anti-Jewish trend in some quarters in this country, fueled by the Middle East situation with Israel and the perceived support for Israel by American Jews. But where do we point the finger of blame? Well, obviously, you can find anti-Semites in all quarters of society. In my opinion, however, this is largely fueled on university campuses, those bastions of left-wing thought. Aside from the preponderance of professors who are antagonistic to traditional American values and conservative thought, there is no question that many of them openly favor the Palestinian cause and have nothing positive to say about Israel. In addition, numerous American campuses are hosts to Muslim Student Associations that also express hostility to Israel. Now let me say that I don't expect many Muslims to take Israel's side. That is fine. While I am no expert on Middle East affairs, I would concede that the Palestinians probably have some legitimite grievances. Where they lost my support is when they embraced terrorism. It also didn't help when many of them danced in the streets on 9-11. From my own observations at the University of California at Irvine, where I teach part-time, I have been appalled at the events that the Muslim Student Union has put on for the last several years. The speakers they routinely bring to campus bring a message of hate, not only against Israel when they call for its destruction, but hate against Jews and America as well. It has led me to the conclusion that anti-Semitism is a central theme, although they deny that they are against Jews per se. What they do is constantly repeat the phrase "Zionist Jews" over and over again. But what exactly is a Zionist today? The term referred to a 19th century movement by European Jews to return to their original Jewish homeland in order to escape persecution by Europeans. What is a Zionist today? A Jew who lives in Israel? Or an American Jew who supports Israel's right to survive and defend itself? I have heard speakers like Abdel Amir Malik Ali, an imam from Oakland, who appears at UCI on a regular basis. When he is not praising suicide bombers as heroes, he continually uses the phrase "Zionist Jew" in the same derogatory tone that Nazis referred to "Der Jude". It's not what you say, it's how you say it. I do not wish to paint all American Muslims with the same brush. That would not be fair. However, many activist Muslim students are exhibiting hostility not only to Israel (which is their right), but to Jews in general. Even more alarmingly, many university professors, for whatever motives, are aligning themselves with the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel movement as an aside to their usual hate America diatribes. The lunatic ex-professor, Ward Churchhill appeared as a speaker at the last MSU rally at UCI, joining hands with Malik Ali and other radicals in denouncing Israel and the US. Then there is former President, Jimmy Carter, who also recently spoke at UCI, taking a completely pro-Palestinian position and criticizing Israel and many of their Jewish supporters in the US. (I was present). Many Jews are coming to the conclusion that Carter is an anti-Semite. I am not ready to make that conclusion yet. I just think that he is a dangerously misguided fool, same as he was as president. To conclude, it is my opinion that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is leading to an increase in anti-Semitism in this country, largely fueled on university campuses by some young Muslim students and their radical left professorial sympathizers. I suspect that many people, especially in our universities, would just as soon throw Israel and Jews overboard, so to speak, in order to try and placate Muslim opinions. It is very much like what is happening in many European countries. But it should not happen here. gary fouse fousesquawk
Lee
I found Gary's post very interesting, but I disagree with his conclusion. It's a "which comes first, chicken or egg?" thing. And as far as I can tell, it is the anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism only really has ever been out of vogue, or unacceptable, for a VERY short period of history, the period immediately following WWII. Between my observations, educational background, and understanding of history, I would say that the Israel-Palestine conflict is NOT "leading to an increase" in anti-Semitism in this country, rather, the latent anti-Semitism that has lingered since, well, forever, is leading to an abnormal focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Israel-Palestine conflict has only catalyzed taking anti-Semitism out of the closet. And, BTW, I do mean ABNORMAL focus--the media, the left, et al, all care FAR LESS about other world conflicts; there is FAR LESS coverage of almost ANY OTHER conflict issue in the world. (Tell me, how much crying for divestiture and boycotting of CHINA do you come across? Helllo? Tibet? Or Chechnya? You never hear much about that anymore--yet there is STILL fighting going on there. And how many of you have any idea that there is stuff going on in Chad, thanks to spill over of the conflict in Sudan/Darfur. Now, Darfur you've heard about, but not DAILY, and multiple times per day, they way you do Israel...) So, thank you Gary, for such a well-thought out and incredibly interesting post. But the egg came first: anti-Semitism. The chicken that sprouted from it is the insane (DSM-IV insane) obsession on the Israel-Palestine conflict. (Which might not be the problem that it is had there been far less anti-Semitism... But that's another long post...)
Nick Danger
"Jew gassing is something to be hidden or uprated (whatever that means) but nothing to be ashamed of at the DailyKos." You're about as smart as a brick, aren't you? (Or, more likely, just dishonest.) "Hidden" means the comment should be removed from public viewing, i.e. censored. And "uprated" applied to other comments by the posted, not that one. Doh!
Nick Danger
Gary Fouse, have you ever heard of a paragraph? It separates text into managable chunks.
Nick Danger
It's funny how, when the real slaughter today is aof Moslems, the real de-humanization is of Moslems, and Israel and America are both threatening to use nuclear weapons against Moslem countries, that the slightest criticism of Israel has bedwetters like you crying "anti-Semitism."
 fouse, gary c
Response to Nick Danger, Yes, I know all about paragraphs. The original text was separated by paragraphs, but in some sites, I need to double click I guess to achieve the result. As to your second post, I would argue that Muslims are slaughtering themselves more than anyone else could. And when they kill, slaughter is the appropriate expression. As for de-humanization, when you fly airplanes into buildings, cut off people's heads, blow your self up with bombs so you can kill innocents, set off car bombs, etc. then you are de-humanizing yourself. When you call for the murder of people because they "insult" your religion, you are de-humanizing yourself. I realize that peaceful Muslims hate to see their religion attacked, and I think we Americans have tried very hard not to blame peaceful Muslims for the deeds of the fanatics, but it would be nice to see the civilized faction of Islam rise up and eliminate this cancer from its midst. I hope the paragraphs came out right. (I tripled spaced this time).
 fouse, gary c
I found your response very insightful, and you may well be correct. In my life's experience, I thought that anti-Semitism had decreased as a side result of the Civil Rights movement. Maybe it was just lying dormant as you say. Regardless, it is out there, and in my view, largely spread by the enemies of Israel. While I support Israel, I can respect those who disagree. But we have to confront anti-semitism nonetheless.
Yael
Gary, I appreciate all your comments, but I'd like to ask you what it means to "respect those who disagree" with your support of Israel. For me, "support of Israel" means recognition of a moral imperative that the Jewish people must have safe haven from the murder, atrocities and expulsions that the rest of the world has so consistently brought upon us. I can't think of any reason to respect someone who disagrees with that.
 fouse, gary c
What I meant about respecting those who disagree about Israel is that I recognize that Palestinians probably have some grievances and that Israel occasionally can legitimitly be criticized. However, as to those who want to see Israel destroyed or those who condone acts of terror against Israel, I have no respect. The Palestinians lost my suppoprt a long time ago when they resorted to terror and violence. I don't think we have any real disagreement. You are correct, Jews in Israel and everywhere must be safe from the acts that history has visited upon them.
InRussetShadows
Nick Danger, answer me this one question. Where is the Islamic crusade against slavery?
 fouse, gary c
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 fousesquawk
Francis L. Holland
A fresh analysis of the timeline of the life of Markos C.A. Moultisas Zúñiga (MAMZ), based on testimony he gave in his speech at the Commonwealth Club on June 2, 2006, proves that MAMZ must have been at the CIA for AT LEAST one year, and maybe TWO YEARS. Wiki: Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga This means that after MAMZ completed the standard six-month CIA interviewing period, he must have accepted to be trained by the CIA WITH PAY in the months that followed. This is NOT what MAMZ has told the public, and it appears that he must clearly have lied about the nature and duration of his involvement with the CIA. In his June 2, 2006 speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, MAMZ said that he began “interviewing” at the CIA in 2001. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE AUDIOTAPE FOR VERIFICATION. During the Commonwealth Club speech, MAMZ ALSO said that his time at the CIA ended when he began working for Howard Dean. However, upon reviewing the historical record, it was only on 18 months later, on June 9, 2003 that MAMZ “officially” announced at DailyKos that his consulting firm, (Jerome) Armstrong/Zúñiga, had won a consulting contract with Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. On June 9, 2003, MAMZ announced at DailyKos, “I've been on the road a lot the past few months ( . . . ) the bulk of it was for my new political consulting firm (alongside my partner). I spent this weekend in Burlington, VT, where we officially accepted work on behalf of presidential candidate Howard Dean” DailyKos Archives So, count the months: Even if MAMZ began his time at the CIA on December 31, 2001, he would have to have still been there 17 months later if he turned down permanent employment at the CIA because he began to work for Howard Dean. Wiki: Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga This analysis of the timeline is based on MAMZ’s own words. This proves that, based on MAMZ own recollection of events, he MUST have worked at the CIA for at least 18 months, including a full year AFTER he started DailyKos. Since MAMZ started DailyKos May 22, 2002, the inescapable conclusion of this analysis of the timeline is that MAMZ was employed and training at the CIA for at least 17 to 18 months during the very same period when he was leading an ostensibly leftist anti-war blog. It does seem to present a very serious conflict of interest and breach of the public trust to lead an anti-war blog at the same time that one is secretly working for a Government agency whose job is to investigate, infiltrate and disrupt anti-war activities. Because the proof comes from a careful analysis of MAMZ’s own words, this is no longer in the realm of “conspiracy theories.” It is an infiltration in-fact of the anti-war movement and the Democratic Party by an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. Because of censorship issues at MyLeftWing (in that we have been ordered by the owner, Maryscott OConnor, not to investigate the MAMZ/CIA facts any further at that blog, and some of us have been banned for insisting on doing so) Peeder of MyLeftWing has started a new blog – “Political Fleshfeast” – specifically for the purpose of continuing the investigation and analysis of CIA infiltration the Establishment blogosphere, blog apartheid, and other issues whose investigation leads to bannings at the Establishment blogs. At this new blog, the blogger who first broke the story at MyLeftWing of MAMZ’s CIA involvement, Stupiddy, has been re-analyzing the biographical information provided by Markos C.A. Moulitsas Zúñiga (MAMZ). To make this story easier for the reading public to follow, I have prepared a MS Word-based chronological timeline table of Markos C.A. Moulitsas’ life, that makes the graphic and visual case that MAMZ was probably on the CIA payroll for as long as two years, based on his own statements.
 fouse, gary c
Got Rights?-Yes I was at Chicago's O'Hare Airport this week waiting to board a flight home to southern California. In the departure lounge, I saw a couple of young Muslim girls-probably college age- also waiting to catch a plane. One was wearing a headdress. The other, who was not, was wearing a sweatshirt with the words,"Got Rights?" on the front, a take-off on the "Got Milk?" commercial. On the back was was printed CAIR, Southern California. It got me to wondering to myself about the "Rights" that this young lady thought she was lacking. First and foremost, does this young lady have the right to practice her religion (Islam) freely in the US? Yes, she most certainly does. Does she have a facility in the form of a mosque in which to worship? Of course. There are mosques a plenty in this country, following in the American tradition of freedom of religion. Does she have the right to propagate Islam and attempt to convert others to her faith. Yes. Next, in the wake of 9-11, does she have the right to get on an airplane and travel around the country? Absolutely, as evidenced by the fact that she was at O'Hare Airport waiting to board a flight. Does she have the right to board without being checked? No, but then again, neither do I. In fact, airport security personnel, anxious not to be accused of racial profiling, are going to subject Swedish grandmothers to the same scrutiny as this young lady. Of course, if she decides to engage in provocative behavior (like the "Flying Imams") deliberately designed to bring attention to herself, then she will be subjected to closer scrutiny. Does she have the right to speak out to defend Islam and to question whether Muslims "rights" are being violated? Seems to me that was exactly what she was doing, making a statement with her sweatshirt. Does she have the right to engage in demonstrations at her university, and in the name of free speech, defend suicide bombers in Israel, bring in radical imams to speak at her school, who condemn Israel, Jews and the US in the process? Well, if she attends the University of California at Irvine (where I teach part-time), then that is exactly what happens at that school and dozens, if not hundreds of others around the US, courtesy of the local Muslim Student Associations. Does she have the right to belong to a Muslim advocacy group like CAIR? Yes, she does and apparently she is, indeed a member. Now let's talk about our rights and why Islam is under suspicion among Americans (and among non-Muslims everywhere). I am sure this young lady, if I had engaged her in conversation, would have explained to me that all Muslims should not be condemned because of the actions of a few fanatics. All well and good, but I'm not sure we are talikng about a few. We are talking about a worldwide movement to impose Islam on the rest of the world through terror and violence. If only 5% of all Muslims in the world subscribe to this vision, we are talking about many millions. That is a lot to be concerned about. The message of CAIR (at least publically) is that most American Muslims are loyal, decent, and law-abiding people, and that CAIR will defend their rights, in court if necessary (witness the "Flying Imams"). Yet, CAIR, in spite of its moderate rhetoric is a suspect organization, named as an "Unindicted Co-conspirator" in one terror case prosecuted within the US. They also seem to be adopting the mantle of the "NAACP of Muslims" in the US. In my opinion, this is a bad comparison. The NAACP came into being in the dark days of segregation in the US, when African-Americans were denied their basic rights as citizens (at least in the South), rights such as eating in restaurants, voting, using public facilities. The actions of the NAACP in the years prior to and during the Civil Rights era were necessary and noble. (I would argue that the NAACP of today is another matter, but that is off topic.) I would suggest that American Muslims are missing the point if all they do is proclaim that Islam is really a peaceful religion and they should not be associated with terrorists. What they should be doing is loudly proclaiming to the rest of the Islamic world that they are Americans, and that they will fight the terrorists and preachers of hatred to defend America. They should be getting on planes and going back to their mother countries to spread their message of support for America in the War on Terror. Up to this point, the silence has been deafening. I would also suggest to the young lady at the airport that she should, in fact, defend Islam, which is her religion. However, it isn't necessary to defend it from the rest of us. It is necessary to defend it from the Al-Quaida's, the Hizbollahs, the Hamas', the Mullahs in Iran, the preachers of hate in the mosques of London and elsewhere. She needs to defend it against those who wish to impose Shariah on the rest of the world whether we want it or not. She needs to defend it against the so-called Jihadists around the world, who are disgracing the religion in the eyes of non-Muslims everywhere. She needs to defend Islam from the rule of those who would kill Salmon Rushdie and others who criticize the religion. She needs to defend it from the suicide bombers, the beheaders and other assorted killers everywhere. Ultimately, she needs to defend it from all of those who murder innocents in the name of Allah. Yes, even if she puts her own life in peril, she needs to defend Islam against these murderers. The young lady also needs to recognize that, whatever the dark pages in the history of other religions, today, there is only one major religion engaged in such wholesale salughter in its name-Islam. Finally, she needs to recognize that we non-Muslims are correct to question the true nature of this religion that is causing so much havoc in the world. Yes, we fear Islamic terrorists who would perpetrate another 9-11 on our soil. Yes, we are suspicious, especially when some Muslim passengers deliberately bring attention to themselves on airplanes. When we hear words of hate coming from Muslim Imams on our college campuses (as I have), we do question the nature of Islam. Most of us, since 9-11, are trying to make up our minds about true Islam. Given what has happened, we have every right to our doubts and suspicions. Under our law and Constitution, we have every right to express these doubts (even in the form of cartoons) and ask these questions, and we will not be silenced. So I would suggest to the young lady that she does have rights. If she hears voices that criticize her religion, I would remind her that Christianity takes hits every day in the US. I feel that Muslims here would make a huge mistake if they think confrontation and litigation is the way to go. They should not compare their situation with that of our African-American fellow citizens. It is a false comparison. If we suffer further terror attacks here and the American Muslim community does not speak out loud and clear in its support of America, then they will find themselves further alienated- and the criticism of Islam will reach a crescendo. Young lady, you have the same rights I do. Enjoy them. gary fouse fousesquawk
 fouse, gary c
What is Going On at Columbia University? Columbia University has been in the headlines this week over the speaking appearance yesterday of Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The university and its president, Lee Bollinger have taken a lot of heat for providing Ahmadinejad a platform. Probably due to the the fact that he had placed himself in such a public spotlight, Mr Bollinger publically rebuked Ahmadinejad in strong terms in his introduction. Yet, to many, including those who demonstrated against the speaking appearance, Ahmadinejad's appearance was totally inappropriate. While I defend the principle of free speech, I don't think any institution or entity has an obligation to provide such an offensive figure with a speaking platform. Thus, I tend to be on the side of the demonstrators as long as they didn't disrupt the event itself. Where do we draw the line on who gets invited to a university event to speak? Would Columbia have invited Adolf Hitler to speak as well? Larger questions also exist. Did Columbia invite the controversial Ahmadinejad to speak in order to provide an open forum for debate? Or did they invite him to appear because there was some degree of sympathy for the man, his country and his ideals? Given President Bollinger's remarks to Ahmadinejad, it would be easy to say that Columbia was right in its invitation, and that it was only to provide an open debate, especially since many of the questions were pointed and that Ahmadinejad, in his anwers, demonstrated what a fool he is. One example was his answer to a question about persecution of homosexuals in Iran; he stated that, unlike the US, there were no homosexuals in Iran, a statement that drew laughter from the audience. But what about the idea of providing a forum to a man who questions the Holocaust and has made statements about Israel being wiped off the face of the earth? Senator Charles Schumer of New York, in criticizing Columbia's invitation, asked if a university would invite a representative of the "Flat Earth Society" to come and argue that the world is not really round. Nice analogy, but is Senator Schumer aware that Columbia already employs a professor, one Joseph Massad of the Middle Eastern Studies Department, who not only defends Palestinian suicide bombers, feels that Israel has no right to exist, but who also has argued that the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre was carried out not by Palestinian terrorists, but by Israeli agents? Sen. Schumer, the Flat Earth Society is alive and well at Columbia. Massad is not the only terrorist sympathizer at Columbia. There is also professor Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Chair, Middle Eastern Studies Dept. at Columbia, who holds similar views as Massad. In fact, many have charged that Columbia, like so many other universities, is noted more for its faculty of radical leftists than for a faculty of true scholars, especially in Middle Eastern Studies. Meanwhile, if speakers like the Minutemen happen to be invited to Columbia by conservative students, what happens? Not only is their presentation disrupted, but the stage is stormed by no-nothing students, egged on by their radical professors, something that did not happen to Ahmadinejad. Does the US Military enjoy the opportunity to come to Columbia to recruit? No, but the president of Iran, who is sending bombs and weapons to Iraq to kill our soldiers, is invited. Kind of shows you where Columbia is politically, spiritually and intellectually. As I said, I believe in free speech. I simply question whether everyone is entitled to a public platform to mouth their insanity. We have plenty of street corners where Ahmadinejad could have said whatever he wanted and no one would have arrested him. Personally, with everything that is going on in the world right now (emanating out of the Middle East), I feel it would have been more appropriate to escort Ahmadinejad from the airport to the UN and back to the airport. As Americans, we need to tell him and his ilk that they are not welcome in our country, we are up to here with their nonsense, that we will stand up to them, we will stand up for Israel, and if his 3rd rate country tries any military or terroristic action against the US or Israel, that we will crush them like the bugs that they are. gary fouse fousesquawk
 fouse, gary c
Ahmadinejad in America- A Suggestion About 50 years or so ago, when Chief William Parker was building the Los Angeles Police Department into the finest police department in America, they used to regularly get calls from eastern police departments, such as New York and Philadelphia with requests for surveillance of known organized crime figures who were flying to LA. The LAPD was regularly asked to be present at LA Airport and place the arriving hoods under surveillance during their stay in LA in order to determine who they were meeting with and what they were doing. The LAPD basically complied with half of the requested action. They would meet the plane and promptly place the bad guys on the next returning flight back east. The message was simple: Mafia hoodlums were not welcome in LA. Well, today with our courts, liberal judges and the ACLU, these practices are no longer permitted. But it raises an interesting question given the visit this week of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadiniejad, who came here under the auspices of the United Nations and stayed a while to speak at Columbia University, as well as attend a dinner with such media figures as NBC's Brian Williams, who positively gushed over the chance to rub elbows with this loon. In the wake of Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia, I suggested in a previous blog that we should have escorted the Iranian dictator from the airport to the UN and right back to the airport for a return flight home. As you know, we are bound by our UN commitments to let any foreign head of state come to New York to address the UN. Unfortunately, that has allowed such odious types as Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and now Ahmadinejad to loiter around and appear before our own adoring leftists. Kudos to the City of New York for not granting this bum permission to defile our hollowed Ground Zero in New York during his visit. Unfortunately, Columbia University could not live up to the standards of the city in which it is located. But what do you expect from an American university? Personally, I would have preferred that the State Department refuse his visa in defiance of the UN. What would the UN (a corrupt and inefficient organization made up largely of corrupt dictatorships that are hostile to the US) have done in response? In the past, the UN has threatened to leave New York in response to our refusal to allow some of our adversaries entry rights. Oh please! Wouldn't that be a great set-up, kind of like OJ Simpson being lured into a Las Vegas hotel to steal back his sports memorabilia? Either scenario strikes me as favorable to what transpired this week. Either deny his visa and tell the UN to leave if they don't like it-or give Mr Ahmadinejad a quick turn-around (Teheran - New York, a 2 hour trip to the UN and back to JFK for the return flight home. In other words, let this third world nose-picker from a 3rd rate country learn what real jet lag feels like. But I did not get my way, alas. What resulted is that, thanks to our left-wing academia and news media, Ahmadinejad scored a PR victory for the screaming mobs back home in Greater Lunaticstan. gary fouse fousesquawk
jeff
Problemas de deudas? Usted no esta solo! Las personas se encuentran en deudas por muchas razones; Por perdida del trabajo, deudas atrasadas, una prolongada enfermedad u otra emergencia personal, ... todas estas son comunes situaciones. Por cualquier razón las personas quienes están en una dificultad financiera, frecuentemente necesitan de una guía profesional http://www.debt1consolidation.com

The comments to this entry are closed.