A Little Post Before my July 4th Vacation

Before I leave today to take a brief July 4th vacation, I would like to share a video for everyone to think about while I'm gone. I think the lesson of it is very important.



Penn and Teller do a brilliant, albeit controversial act during their stage show in Las Vegas. I think the point of it is the essence of what July 4th should be about. It's more than fireworks. It's about ideals of freedom birthed in 1776 as detailed in The Declaration of Independence. One thing that makes America great is the importance of choice. Millions of men and women have died for choice. Many are still dying. Others in other parts of the world are still fighting and dying for choice in places around the world. Without making this into another sappy screed, I would like to call all Americans and her friends around the world to let us celebrate choice today, this July 4th, as well as the ideals of our country. It isn't the wealth of America, nor its might that make us great, but our values. All other positive attributes are secondary, and come from these values. We are free people. We will not bend to the will of tyrants.

On a Related Note...

On a related note, due to the recent protests, I recently bought a copy of Sir Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses in defiance of the religious fascists who desire that I do not. I suggest anyone reading this blog do the same.

Rushdie Redux

Since 1998, many had assumed that a Fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie in 1989 had died out, including the author himself, supposedly. His recent knighting had, predictably with the current events being what they are, made the intolerant army of Allah angry, calling for his death for his blasphemy towards Islam, etc., etc., and all that.

Thankfully, this continued vocal Fatwa has led to a backlash against the intolerance of the Slaves to Allah from so many intellectuals. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former MP of Holland's Parliament, and now a US citizen, likened the new "outcry" by the fundamentalist mobs to "...a crowd of Englishmen marched in London carrying effigies of Muhammad, peace be upon him, stacks of the Koran, miniatures of the Kaaba in Mecca and Saudi flags" and making a bonfire, throwing "...the items one at a time into that fire screaming 'Long Live the Queen!' each time the flames shot up." Ayaan has had to deal with the Islamic hatred of competing belief systems, as detailed in her two books, the manifesto, The Caged Virgin and her memior, Infidel, which I am currently reading.

Daniel Pipes, going against the popular belief that the knighting is a sign of "British Backbone", correctly points out that the Fatwa wasn't over in 1998, when a false sense of security fell over the Rushdie's backers after an Iranian official claimed the death sentence was over. Now with his knighting, we see the security that was imagined quickly disappear with each chant of "Death to the Queen". What Pipes gets wrong, however, is that he criticises the British government for not thinking of the "implications" of their honoring him, a sentiment echoed by the British Conservative Party MP Stewart Jackson. Instead, perhaps we shouldn't worry about the "implications" of what people thousands of miles away think about how we use our freedoms to honor those who we find to be of value to literature and society. Perhaps we shouldn't worry about the "implications" of our continuing to be free and exercising our freedoms. In fact, we shouldn't worry about the feelings of fascists who hate free societies that don't bow to their idea of law. Such thinking is bowing to their belief system, giving them veto power over our every action.

Christopher Hitchens, close friend of Sir Rushdie has been a constant defender of him in this whole charade. In his latest Slate column states that we should disregard the anger of perpetually outraged religious fanatics and let them be angry while we freely exercise our freedoms. All attempts to please these people are pointless, he says.

I agree with Mr. Hitchens and Ayaan Hirsi Ali that we shouldn't live at the mercy of their delicate, impoverished egos. In fact, I think it's time that we relish their miserable rage and let them threaten us with death. We already have a Fatwa on all of us right now who don't follow such disgusting practices as "female circumcision" and "honor killings". I wish more people would see that. If we cease to be a free society because we let these thugs have veto power over how we use our freedoms, then we are no longer a free society. We might as well convert right now, if that is the case.

Note to the Right: Concentrate on Something Important

To see the spectacle of countless right-wing pundits upset over Keith Ellison's swearing in being planned using a Qu'ran instead of a Bible is something that nearly crushes my belief that the Conservatives are the people we need to fight this threat. It saddens me when I see Dennis Prager become the opposite extreme of Multi-culturalism and say that the Bible should be the only book of which our public officeholders swear upon. The more I read Mr. Prager's November 28th column, the more I find his justification for this to be more and more vacuous. According to Prager:

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Okay... sounds like a stretch of the imagination, but let's give him a chance to explain.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible.

His first assertion is that this is all the work of the multiculturalists. Sorry Dennis, I am hardly what you would call a "multiculturalist". I do in fact believe that Secular Western Culture is superior to the rest of the world. I also believe that the Koran does not hold any divine influence behind it and that it, like the Bible has warm and fuzzy quotations, as well as parts that encourage intolerace, hate, and bigotry. And I don't believe in cultural relativism. However, if the cultural relativists say that what is important in using as a book or other object for the swearing in should be what the individual being sworn in deems important, then I have no problems with the multiculturalists there.

Mr. Prager also fails to make a decent point in his statement that "America is interested in only one book..." Swearing on something that other people believe in but you do not is ultimately meaningless. Ellison, as a Muslim, believes that the Koran is the divine word of God, or Allah, if you like, not the Bible. If those who see the Bible as the divine, inspired word of God were to swear upon a Koran in a Muslim majority society, it would be just as silly.

To illustrate this, imagine this fictional and a little out-there example of an alternate Earth. In this Earth, the politicians in the United States swear upon the Sacred Rubber Chicken of the Church of Chickenology, the majority religion of the United States. However, a member of another religion has been elected to political office. He decides that instead of swearing to uphold the Constitution on the Sacred Rubber Chicken, he instead will swear upon the Divine Plastic Cheeseburger, as he is a member of the Church of Beefology and that is the sacred object of which his religion is based. The Right, however, furious that this one individual wants to break a tradition, they furiously demand "This tradition has never been broken! For centuries, we have sworn on the Chicken, even some of us who didn't believe in it because that is what America thinks matters." The stupidity of these statement is of the same stupidity of what Mr. Prager is stating. Like the Sacred Rubber Chicken in my ridiculous fantasy universe, the Bible is not believed by all, even if the majority supposedly does. And even so, Ellison, like the fictional politician from the fictional universe, does not believe in the Bible as the most sacred object or word of God or whatever. To him, the Koran is what is most important. Swearing upon that thing is what is important to him and carries more weight.

Of course, Mr. Prager isn't finished, and neither am I:

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.

This supposed precedent is unimportant and of no consequence. The deference to tradition in performing a serious oath is unimportant. Whether Jews and other practitioners of different religions have sworn with the Bible before is unimportant as well. In fact, it shows a lack of honesty in deference to a Judeo-Christian traditon in a secular and increasingly religiously-diverse country. Isn't it better to ask them to swear to uphold our Constitution on something THEY believe in, or should we continue a supposedly written-in-stone tradition where the person doing the swearing-in is swearing upon something which the majority of the country believes is extremely or the most meaningful, while the elected office-holder deems it to be of lesser or of no importance?

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.

This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

I only agree to a very small extent. I do believe much of this ado-over-nothing is over the fact that Mr. Ellison is a Muslim and that this is a leftist publicity stunt. But, it goes both ways. There is as much evidence that this is also a concern of the Right for the very same reasons. What better way for the Republican party to get supporters back from the great Election loss of '06 than to create a tempest in a teacup that is the use of a different book for a swearing-in? Ultimately, this is a publicity stunt for both groups. The Left is using this as bait to capture their opponents and distract them. Like an all too eager catfish catching a minnow on a fisherman's hook, they have let the ravenous appetite of the Religious Right blind the Republican Party from uniting the country against the shark that is Jihadist Islam, among other issues that matter (one can make a parallel between the Right in this issue and the plethora of Secularists who are more concerned with getting rid of Christmas trees than Islamic Terrorism). And of course, the Left and the Saudi-sponsored CAIR organization and their ilk are using it to show how intolerant the right and America is to Muslims. For the Right, this is a battle not worth fighting, as it is unwinnable and has nothing to gain.

While I believe that the Politically Correct Leftist crowd has ridiculously bent over backwards to avoid offense of Muslims or Islam itself, I don't think that this is primarily a case of that attitude here. In fact, imagine if Mr. Ellison's plans for his swearing-in are implemented. What is there to lose or gain? There are only three losers I would see in this scenario. The first are, of course, some of the misguided Right-wingers who decided to march alongside Mr. Prager in this issue. The second, are the multi-culturalist left-wingers who constantly hammer the insane idea that America is an intolerant country, afraid of social progress, change, and tolerance, especially to Muslims. To have a Muslim elected and use his holy book for the swearing-in would be a slap in the face to that narrative. And most importantly, we have the the ones we really want to lose, the corrupt holy leaders who are constantly searching for gullible Muslims to die for their 72 virgins. One of their most important places of recruitment are within the borders of the United States, in the Islamic communities. How can the extremists be taken seriously when they claim that the United States is hostile to Muslims and there are people in the communities that know of, or even voted for a Muslim candidate who won and had a swearing-in ceremony. What would even make it harder for the Jihadist leaders is that this Muslim was allowed to swear upon his holy book! This will obviously not "embolden" them when their recruitment numbers begin to dwindle. Chances are, they will not see this as a victory for their sick cause, as their cause demands the destruction of the United States, not integration into and cooperation with it, as Mr. Ellison has done so far. The fear of the "Islamification of America" coming from this is so absurd, it almost exactly matches the hue that the Anti-War Multiculturalist Left wants to paint all of us who are serious about fighting terrorism with one swift stroke. The Right should go back to fighting the real enemies of our civilization, instead of making up new imaginary ones.



Add to del.icio.us

And Now... A Time for Civil Disobedience in Response to McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform

(Hat-Tip goes to Misha, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.)

I believe that whatever the traffic that goes to my blog, I have to participate in an act of Civil Disobedience that is taking the blogosphere by storm. In this post, all you have to do is promote whatever candidate for any political office. Why am I allowing this? Because the McCain-Feingold bill is opposed to allowing supporters of candidates for a federal office from using soft money donations to fund ads 60 days before the general election. In essence, I believe this is an attack on the First Amendment rights of our citizens, as these so-called "soft money" groups are actually a way for less wealthy and politically active individuals to equalize their influence on candidates versus the more wealthy individual donors.

Also, the law is now being broadly interpreted as meaning that even posting a link to a preferred candidate may in fact be a violation. Just read this and see what I mean.

If this is considered a law, then I, as a free individual who chooses whether or not to consent to the laws, must refuse to recognize this one. It is a violation of Free Speech, and I will not let this stand any longer.

All are free to comment in the comments section of this particular post, and endorse any candidate regardless of political views or affiliation. No endorsement will be moderated or censored in any way. This is what America SHOULD be, and it may take many citizens of this country to disobey this law, shouting in one voice that no law in conflict with our Bill of Rights is a law worth obeying.

Zucker's New GOP Ad Should Be Put Up

(Hat-tip goes to Drudge)

David Zucker, Producer and Director of such films as Airplane!, Scary Movie 3 and 4, and my personal favorite, the Naked Gun films, has recently finished an ad for the GOP that he is hoping to get circulated on TV stations. Unfortunately, this video is seen as "over-the-top" by GOP strategists, and is currently not being distributed. What a shame.

Here is the video:


According to one GOP Strategist:

"Nobody could believe Zucker thought any political organization could use this ad. It makes a point, but it's way over the top."

Source: http://www.drudgereport.com/flashma.htm

What a pity. The truth is that this video, while showing the over-the-top comedy that made Zucker so famous in Hollywood, shows the intellectual and moral failing of the Democratic Party in dealing with terrorism as seen by so many Republicans and Conservatives. What these GOP strategists fail to see, either due to not understanding comedy, being spineless, or both, is that the over-the-top nature of this video is the very point of the film. One of the many weapons in Comedy is to show a flawed idea is to take it to its extreme logical conclusion and thus show the sillyness of the other side in doing so. This film shows EXACTLY what I see as wrong in the "Peace and Stability" crowd that infects the halls of Academia, the Democratic Party, and countless blowhard political talking-heads. And that is the reason, that despite the Foley scandal that's been shown on our TV screens on endless repeat, I will NOT choose to vote for Democrats in this coming election, and perhaps many elections to come. The GOP does indeed have its flaws, and I believe there is a desperate need for a change within the party with bringing less fire-and-brimstone religious Conservatives and RINOs who are for big government in the economic sector out of office. Despite that, their one strength is that they back this War for Civilization we are now fighting when so many are unwilling. Defense of our country of our civilization is the most important issue. It is a damn pity that whether or not to do so has become a heated debate, as opposed to debating on how to accomplish victory. Thankfully, people like Zucker, through their intellectual and artistic skill, show how the ultimate failure of those who made this unnecessary debate occur.

My Thoughts on the Axis of Evil Summit at the UN Headquarters

Much coverage has been made about the recent speeches by presidents Dictators Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the press and commentators. What is important is that we, while approving or disapproving of their words, understand exactly WHO they are. Leftists most likely will strongly agree with their statements against "American Imperialism". But, to paraphrase the oft-quoted statment, "The enemy of my enemy is not my friend." In Lou Minatti: The Chavez-Chomsky-Ahmadinejad Asshat Triad, Lou points out an obvious question: Do you hate George Bush and/or the United States so much that you want to side with these individuals?

This is exactly the thought that went through my head when I visited a local bookstore in Raleigh, The Reader's Corner, had one of Ahmadinejad's idiotic "letters" to President Bush. While one can merely debate the the merits or lack thereof concerning the arguments in the letter, one must at some point "Consider the Source", and possibly find the myriad of more decent people critical of the Bush Administration saying the exact same thing.

So, what makes these individuals so unsavory for those with some knowledge of who they are? Plenty. For instance, the beloved Ahmadinejad is well-known to have stated that the Holocaust was a myth and even was a major force in starting a cartoon contest whose focus was on the Holocaust being a hoax. That, included with his well-known mention of a desire to "wipe Israel off the map", makes many look behind the "Moderate", "Anti-Imperialist" facade and see a raging anti-Semite. While the left gives Mel "What do you think you're looking at, sugar tits?" Gibson hell for the things he said while drunk, it's amazing that they won't criticise what the Iranian Dictator said while sober. Wouldn't Ahmadinejad be more important, given that between him and Mr. Gibson, he has an army and nuclear weapons at his disposal to implement his sick dream and Mr. Gibson doesn't? As an aside note on Mr. Gibson, does it not surprise you that the two men also have the same opinion on the Iraq war now?

As for Hugo Chavez, it should be obvious. Under his populist mask, you see a conniving, slithering snake. He gives goodies like lower oil prices to Native American reservations and now Harlem, both places where the population is prone to bwe critical of the United States. But while the short-sighted will praise his kindness to these people, they will fail to see the political strategery behind it. More frighteningly, they will also fail to see his restructuring the Venezuelan government to gaurantee his victory in every election and make sure that any opposition to him on any political move is futile(Bugmenot Login). In fact, it can be said that he is the living example of the Left-Wing characature of George W. Bush. Such an observation is quite ironic, given that Casey Sheehan's mother, who blames Bush for her son's death and makes the same accusations towards Bush that Chavez is known to have in fact done, visited him to rally against US Imperialism.

The image of Mr. Chavez holding the book by Noam Chomsky is almost emblematic of the Left today. The political groups that used to stand for Universal Suffrage, Freedom of Speech without question, and Equal Opportunity have now been transformed to the groups that make excuses for, nay, back up Dictators, Terrorists, and other assorted thugs. It is sad to see behind almost every evil occuring in the world today, the Left is not far behind in their support or excuse-making of it. Mr. Rangel and Ms. Pelosi's half-hearted denunciations of what Mr. Chavez said may have softened the blow, but the point remains. Chomsky has many followers who will undoubtedly vote for and support Mr. Rangel and Ms. Pelosi when given the chance, and will also doubtlessly regard Mr. Chavez highly for the things he said last week. There is an important lesson to be learned in all of this. The company one keeps doesn reflect one's character. Like the Right and it's sad excuse-making for "anti-Communist" dictatorships that were no different than the enemy we were facing in the Cold War, the Left stands behind and makes excuses for some of the worst monsters of our time. Like I said earlier in this post, The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.