|
Patron
|
Quote:
Why Democrats hate patriotism
Evan Sayet
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 6 February 2006
Karl Rove recently said (yet again) that the Democrats are not unpatriotic. It’s a brilliant political move akin to the president’s repeated claims that Islam is a religion of peace. No one really believes either claim, making the statements a win-win for the Republican politicians.
By saying that Islam is a religion of peace the president shows his Christian charity in perfect contradiction to the on-going hatefest that is the Arab/Moslem world just as the Republicans, by saying that the Democrats aren’t unpatriotic, shows the good guys to be bending over backwards to be civil even as nothing but hateful slanders are offered against America and Americans from today’s left.
But I am not a Christian or a politician and I’m not feeling any more charitable towards the Democrats than I do towards Islamic fascists, so I’ll speak the truth: Democrats are not only not patriotic, they despise and fear anyone who is.
The reason for this is simple: Modern Liberalism — the dominant ideology of today’s Democrat party — is wedded to the childish philosophy of “multiculturalism.” Multiculturalism is the fantasy that all cultures are equally good and equally right. This is why the Democrats believe that the United Nations and not the United States should decide what is best for America and the world. It is why the Democrats believe we should “celebrate diversity,” as if all differences — say freedom of religion and massacring all infidels — are equally worthy of celebration.
Since the multiculturalists see nothing special about America, patriotism is nothing other than a form of bigotry. To the Democrats, one loves America not for the freedoms and opportunities it affords its citizens, nor for the goodness of our people and institutions, but rather only because we were born here. After all, don’t people who were born in North Korea love North Korea?
Since freedom is of no special value to the Democrats (this is why Democrats heroes like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore can argue with a straight face that fascist terrorists seeking to create an oppressive, Taliban-like Caliphate around the world are “freedom fighters”) Americans love of freedom is nothing more than a mindless “hooray for our side” and their hatred of oppression is but mere xenophobia.
Worst of all, American patriots are those so blindly led by their mindless love of freedom as to actually be willing to fight and kill (or even die) for it. Imagine, if you will, something utterly undistinguished — a piece of chewing gum, for example. Now imagine someone cherishing that gum. Now imagine someone who so cherishes that piece of gum that he’s willing to fight, kill, or even die to protect it. And now imagine that person well trained, well fed, and well armed. Pretty scary stuff.
Well, that’s exactly how the Democrat sees the American soldier. Insane, bigoted, and armed. And all for something — freedom — that, to the Democrat, is of no more value than a piece of chewed up gum. No wonder they so hate and fear them.
Evan Sayet is a writer, speaker, and pundit in Los Angeles and former communications director for LA for President Bush. He has been a TV and movie writer with credits ranging from "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" to the cult classic "Win Ben Stein's Money" and the Discovery Channel documentary "The 70's: When Decades Attack." He is currently working on a book: "Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals 'Think.'" Evan’s blog is SayetRight and he receives email at Sayet@Socal.RR.Com
|
( link)
Quote:
Islamo-fascists’ useful idiots
Amil Imani
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 14 August 2006
Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new generation of “Useful Idiots,” the sort of people Lenin identified living in liberal democracies who furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies, but serves the cause of Islamofascism — another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.
Useful Idiots are naïve, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population.
Arguably, the most dangerous variant of the Useful Idiot is the “Politically Correct.” He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception.
The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor he feels he belongs to.
The Useful Idiot is conflicted and dishonest. He fails to look inside himself and discover the causes of his own problems and unhappiness while he readily enlists himself in causes that validate his distorted perception. Understandably, it is easier to blame others and the outside world than to examine oneself with an eye to self-discovery and self-improvement. Furthermore, criticizing and complaining — liberal practices of the Useful Idiot — require little talent and energy. The Useful Idiot is a great armchair philosopher and “Monday Morning Quarterback.”
The Useful Idiot is not the same as a person who honestly has a different point of view. A society without honest and open differences of views is a dead society. Critical, different and fresh ideas are the life blood of a living society — the very anathema of autocracies where the official position is sacrosanct.
Even a “normal” person spends a great deal more energy aiming to fix things out there than working to overcome his own flaws and shortcomings, or contribute positively to the larger society. People don’t like to take stock of what they are doing or not doing that is responsible for the conditions they disapprove.
But the Useful Idiot takes things much farther. The Useful Idiot, among other things, is a master practitioner of scapegoating. He assigns blame to others while absolving himself of responsibility, has a long handy list of candidates for blaming anything and everything, and by living a distorted life, he contributes to the ills of society.
The Useful Idiot may even engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits him. Terms such as “Political Islam,” or “Radical Islam,” for instance, are contributions of the Useful Idiot. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter — the Quran — is a radical political movement. It is the Useful Idiot who sanitizes Islam and misguides the populace by saying that the “real Islam” constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate.
Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with these nonsensical euphemisms depicting Islam because it prefers to believe them. It is less threatening to believe that only a hijacked small segment of Islam is radical or politically driven and that the main body of Islam is indeed moderate and non-political.
But Islam is political to the core. In Islam the mosque and state are one and the same — the mosque is the state. This arrangement goes back to the days of Muhammad himself. Islam is also radical in the extreme. Even the “moderate” Islam is radical in its beliefs as well as its deeds. Muslims believe that all non-Muslims, bar none, are hellfire bound and well-deserve being maltreated compared to believers.
No radical barbaric act of depravity is unthinkable for Muslims in dealing with others. They have destroyed precious statues of Buddha, leveled sacred monuments of other religions, and bulldozed the cemeteries of non-Muslims — a few examples of their utter extreme contempt for others.
Muslims are radical even in their intrafaith dealings. Various sects and sub-sects pronounce other sects and sub-sects as heretics worthy of death; women are treated as chattel, deprived of many rights; hands are chopped for stealing even a loaf of bread; sexual violation is punished by stoning, and much much more. These are standard day-to-day ways of the mainstream “moderate” Muslims living under the stone-age laws of Sharia.
The “moderate” mainstream of Islam has been outright genocidal from inception. Their own historians record that Ali, the first imam of the Shiite and the son-in-law of Muhammad, with the help of another man, beheaded 700 Jewish men in the presence of the Prophet himself. The Prophet of Allah and his disciples took the murdered men’s women and children in slavery. Muslims have been, and continue to be, the most vicious and shameless practitioners of slavery. The slave trade, even today, is a thriving business in some Islamic lands where wealthy, perverted sheikhs purchase children of the poor from traffickers for their sadistic gratification.
Muslims are taught deception and lying in the Quran itself—something that Muhammad practiced during his life whenever he found it expedient. Successive Islamic rulers and leaders have done the same. Khomeini, the founder of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, for instance, rallied the people under the banner of democracy. All along his support for democracy was not a commitment of an honest man, but a ruse.
As soon as he gathered the reins of power, Khomeini went after the Useful Idiots of his time with vengeance. These best children of Iran, having been thoroughly deceived and used by the crafty phony populist-religionist, had to flee the country to avoid the fate of tens of thousands who were imprisoned or executed by the double-crossing imam.
Almost three decades after the tragic Islamic Revolution of 1979, the suffocating rule of Islam casts its death-bearing pal over Iranians. A proud people with enviable heritage is being systematically purged of its sense of identity and forced to think and behave like the barbaric and intolerant Muslims. Iranians who had always treated women with equality, for instance, have seen them reduced by the stone-age clergy to sub-human status of Islamic teaching. Any attempt by the women of Iran to counter the misogynist rule of Muhammad’s mullahs is mercilessly suppressed. Women are beaten, imprisoned, raped and killed just as men are slaughtered without due process or mercy.
The lesson is clear. Beware of the Useful Idiots who live in liberal democracies. Knowingly or unknowingly, they serve as the greatest volunteer and effective soldiers of Islam. They pave the way for the advancement of Islam and they will assuredly be among the very first victims of Islam as soon as it assumes power.
Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist. He maintains a website at AmilImani.com
|
( link)
Quote:
The media vs. the war on terror
Rich Noyes
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 11 September 2006
In the five years since al-Qaeda terrorists killed nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, both international critics and domestic groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have suggested that the American government’s tactics in the War on Terror are as frightening as terrorism itself. These mostly liberal critics portray the Bush administration as trampling on the civil rights of ordinary Americans, abusing the human rights of captured terrorists and acting without regard to the rule of law.
Unfortunately, the broadcast networks are using this Bush-bashing spin as the starting point for much of their coverage of the War on Terror. An analysis by the Media Research Center finds network reporters are presuming the worst about the government’s anti-terror efforts, and permitting their coverage to be driven by the agenda of leftist groups such as the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights*. While some on the Left have claimed the media were enthusiastic boosters of the Bush administration in the days after 9/11, the MRC found that network reporters began to question the idea of a vigorous War on Terror within days of the attacks.
MRC analysts analyzed 496 stories that aired on ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News between September 11, 2001 and August 31, 2006. They examined all evening news stories about three major elements of the post-9/11 war on terrorism: the treatment of captured terrorists at Guantanamo Bay (277 stories); the National Security Agency’s program to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists calling to or from the U.S. (128 stories); and the USA Patriot Act (91 stories). Major findings:
- Most TV news stories about the Patriot Act (62 percent) highlighted complaints or fears that the law infringed on the civil liberties of innocent Americans. This theme emerged immediately after the law was first proposed in September 2001, less than a week after the 9/11 attacks. Only one report (on NBC) suggested the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism measures "may not be enough."
- ABC, CBS and NBC heavily favored critics of the Patriot Act. Of 23 soundbites from "experts" (such as law professors or ex-FBI agents), 61 percent faulted the law as a threat to privacy rights. Of 19 soundbites from ordinary citizens, every one condemned the Patriot Act, despite polls showing most Americans support the Patriot Act and believe it has prevented new acts of terrorism.
- Most of the network coverage of Guantanamo Bay focused on charges that the captured al-Qaeda terrorists were due additional rights or privileges (100 stories) or allegations that detainees were being mistreated or abused (105 stories). Only 39 stories described the inmates as dangerous, and just six stories revealed that ex-detainees had committed new acts of terror after being released.
- Network reporters largely portrayed the Guantanamo inmates as victims, with about one in seven stories including the word "torture." The networks aired a total of 46 soundbites from Guantanamo prisoners, their families or lawyers, most professing innocence or complaining about mistreatment. Not one report about the Guantanamo prisoners included a comment from 9/11 victims, their families or lawyers speaking on their behalf.
- Most network stories (59 percent) cast the NSA’s post 9/11 terrorist surveillance program as either legally dubious or outright illegal. Exactly half of the news stories (64) framed it as a civil liberties problem, while 38 stories saw the President provoking a constitutional crisis with Congress and the courts. Only 21 stories (16 percent) focused on the program’s value as a weapon in the War on Terror.
- ABC, CBS and NBC were five times more likely to showcase experts who criticized the NSA’s surveillance program. Of 75 total soundbites, 41 of them (55 percent) condemned the program, compared to just eight (11 percent) from experts who found it worth praising. The CBS Evening News has so far refused to show any pro-NSA experts.
The debate is not about whether reporters can challenge a president and his policies during a time of war. Of course they can. But the networks have chosen to highlight the complaints of those who paint the Bush administration as a danger equal to or greater than the terrorists themselves. Reporters could have spent the past five years challenging the administration with an agenda most Americans share, demanding that the government do everything within its lawful powers to protect the public and prevent another attack. Instead, liberal reporters have opted to join the ACLU in fretting that the War on Terror has already gone too far.
Editor’s note: The Center for Constitutional Rights is a Stalinist organization founded by fanatical supporters of Castro. Lynne Stewart, a prominent member of the CCR, was found guilty last February of aiding and abetting Islamic terrorists. George Soros was one of those who funded Stewart. He has never said why.
*Rich Noyes is the Research Director of the Media Research Center
|
( link) |