My opinion:
These riots in Baltimore are organized by the same people who organized the riots in Florida, and in Ferguson, Missouri, and the same people who organized the Occupy Wall Street riots as well.
These are not protests. They are organized incursions by people who want to overthrow the Constitution (and the government under that Constitution) of the United States of America.
Their purpose is, through repeated onslaught, to degrade and destroy the will of the people of the U.S.
Their purpose is to break off pieces of the mountain of faith and fortitude that it takes to keep this nation going.
These people are organized in pursuit of Treasonous activity.
The activity of protesting police is not Treason. The activity of rioting, while illegal, is not treason.
But the activity of organizing a group of people to repeatedly riot in response to any given offense, no matter how disparate in nature; THAT IS TREASON.
These people should be rounded up, placed under arrest, tried, convicted, and hanged until dead.
*** Credit to Reliapundit at Astute Bloggers.
UPDATE - Let us not forget that many of these treasonous acts are being performed in concert with the very people who are supposed to be maintaining order:
Showing posts with label Leftists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leftists. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Hey Lefties, ISIS Has Got Your Number
From PJM:
An ISIS e-book on how to accomplish their caliphate goal of sacking Rome stresses enlisting “the Islamic State’s secret weapon = secret white converts” to take on Italy. Much of the book, “Black Flags from Rome,” is dedicated to laying out a case for why Muslims in Europe should rise up and assist ISIS from within, citing justifications for discontent from modern-day anti-immigration protests back to post-Ottoman creation of Muslim “ghettos.”
It states that European Muslims can ally with “a growing population of left-winged activists (people who are against; human/animal abuses, Zionism, and Austerity measures etc)” who “look up to the Muslims as a force who are strong enough to fight against the injustices of the world” in countering a growing divide between Muslims and “right-wing neo-Nazis.”
It specifically cites people who are “sometimes” allied with Anonymous or anarchy groups — even though, angered by the assault on Charlie Hebdo, Anonymous is currently carrying out a hacking operation to take down ISIS accounts.
“If you have ever been at a pro-Palestine / anti-Israel protest, you will see many activists who are not even Muslims who are supportive of what Muslims are calling for (the fall of Zionism). It is most likely here that connections between Muslims and Left-wing activists will be made, and a portion from them will realise that protests are not effective, and that armed combat is the alternative,” the book states.
“So they will start to work together in small cells of groups to fight and sabotage against the ‘financial elite’.” The book predicts such “recruits” sympathetic to their cause “will give intelligence, share weapons and do undercover work for the Muslims to pave the way for the conquest of Rome.”
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Frances Scott Piven: The Tea Party is all about sex
(hat tip to Bunkerville)
Note that she has no data to support her statement, no photos or reports of Tea Party participants rutting in the bushes:
Note that she has no data to support her statement, no photos or reports of Tea Party participants rutting in the bushes:
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Revealing Capitalization
From this source quoting James J. Lee, who invaded the Discovery Channel's building today in Silver Spring Maryland, fired shots, and held hostages until the police shot him:"Nothing is more important than saving ... the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans? The planet does not need humans.”Read the rest at Always On Watch.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
WSJ's Dorothy Rabinowitz: Obama "Alien in the White House"
There is currently a video at FOX News of Rabinowitz defending this editorial in eloquent terms to a pair of suits who are obviously uncomfortable with her straightforward and uncompromising conclusions.
Op-Ed: An Alien in the White House
By Dorothy Rabinowitz
The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.
There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.
Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.
A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.
One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.
Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.
Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judicary Committee on May 13.
Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."
And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."
He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."
Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marvelled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.
Long after Mr. Obama leaves office, it will be this parade of explicators, laboring mightily to sell each new piece of official reality revisionism—Janet Napolitano and her immortal "man-caused disasters'' among them—that will stand most memorably as the face of this administration.
It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.
It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.
It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.
So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative.
It is no surprise that Mr. Posner—like numerous of his kind—has found a natural home in this administration. His is a sensibility and political disposition with which Mr. Obama is at home. The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.
They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.
The truth about that distance is now sinking in, which is all to the good. A country governed by leaders too principled to speak the name of its mortal enemy needs every infusion of reality it can get.
Op-Ed: An Alien in the White House
By Dorothy Rabinowitz
The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.
There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.
Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.
A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.
One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.
Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.
Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judicary Committee on May 13.
Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."
And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."
He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."
Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marvelled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.
Long after Mr. Obama leaves office, it will be this parade of explicators, laboring mightily to sell each new piece of official reality revisionism—Janet Napolitano and her immortal "man-caused disasters'' among them—that will stand most memorably as the face of this administration.
It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.
It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.
It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.
So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative.
It is no surprise that Mr. Posner—like numerous of his kind—has found a natural home in this administration. His is a sensibility and political disposition with which Mr. Obama is at home. The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.
They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.
The truth about that distance is now sinking in, which is all to the good. A country governed by leaders too principled to speak the name of its mortal enemy needs every infusion of reality it can get.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
The Unembarassables
Pamela Geller ("Fearless, intelligent, beautiful -- Pamela Geller wears her Supergirl costume well ... is a dynamo of energy and a paragon of courage and fearlessness." Spencer about Geller) and Robert Spencer ("Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt." Geller about Spencer) (Yes, we cackled too!) have cancelled their trip to Cologne.
Politically Incorrect says that the withdrawal was due to Charles Johnson’s of LGF infame attacks on Pro-Köln, as a "fascist" organization. Wow!
What could have cyber-Charlemagne done to them? Send them a cyber curse for cyber-fascists? Cyber-clobber them with a cyber-fascism-cudgel? Cyber-drown their cyber-rubber duckie? Seriously, there is only one sensemaking reason for them to continue to defend their wannabe-hosts when they have cancelled their attendance, namely that they've gotten cold feet in the face of the many information on Pro-Köln they have gotten from serious Islamcritics in Germany (some of which I have seen) who know a thing or two more about their own country than our Innocents Abroad. And being the unprincipled attention seekers they are, they are now blaming CJ for it, so as not to close any doors to potential future appearances. (Yes, I know, the latter is an assumption.)
DISCLAIMER START
At this point, a disclaimer is called for: We do NOT deny Pro-Köln the right to host such an anti-Islam event. The way the city of Cologne is handling this shows that they have not yet arrived at democracy and probably never will. They do everything to marginalise, even foreclose, Pro-Köln's, a legal party's, activities, for example by banning a march to the building site of the gigantic DITIB-mosque, while they are tolerating next to the magnificent Cologne cathedral a permanent vile Israel-baiting exhibition. Such a march can not be "protected", or so Cologne police chief Klaus Steffenhagen says, which is unquestioningly repeated by the media. Gudrun Eussner says: Many events licensed by the authorities, which do not need to be protected, take care that the anti-Islamisation congress can not be protected." And:Is it radical Left anarchists now who are deciding now who is allowed to rally here and who isn't? Are they allowed to break the monopoly of the state on the use of force and does the police take it for granted?
The answer is: yes.
DISCLAIMER END
However, legal as Pro-Köln may be, a few questions regarding their legitimacy may be in order.
First and above all, their criticism of Islam is opportunist. Markus Beisicht, co-founder and chairman of Pro-Köln and Pro-NRW confirms in an Interview with the Junge Freiheit that "Islamkritik" is for Pro-Köln and Pro-NRW not more than part of a right-wing party project. Islamisation has become such a crucial topic for so many people and basically fits into a catalogue of "rightwing" issues that they picked it up and had been amazed how well it was received. "Specifically in big cities one can score here." They have, as Beisicht puts it, claimed a "market niche" and thus reached voters who wouldn't have elected them otherwise.
In other words and as Gudrun Eussner puts it: While looking for befitting issues for a party-project, Pro-Köln has found Islamisation. Therefore it might have been a different topic as well, had it only served the purpose of attracting voters.
Many "nationalist" European parties are, also, not quite the knights in shining anti-Islamic armour as which American Islam critics are fond of seeing them. Front National and FPÖ, for example, have nothing against Islam as such as long as Muslims are safely staying in their own countries. The Pro-movement shares this point of view, therefore their catchphase is "Against Islamisation and Überfremdung(1)", two terms, often used together. It is typical that both, left- and rightwing extremists, have nothing against Islam as such because of their natural affinity to a totalitarian polit-ideology like Islam. If it comes push to shove, rightwingers will club together with Muslims, be it against the Serbs or against the Jews, thinly veiled as anti-Zionism. Case in point: March 1999, Manfred Rouhs, later to become a Pro-Köln co-founder, supports the terrorist UCK in the Kosovo, who are - for him - liberation nationalists.
What says Robert Spencer in his own words at Jihad Watch?:
Meanwhile, I am not going to the Cologne conference, contrary to Johnson's claims; still, however, he is trying to defame me with it. From here is the claim that I am "defending" Manfred Rouhs of Pro-Köln, whom Johnson claims is a Nazi, because I posted his pro-Israel statement here. (You know you're in Johnson's Bizarro world when posting a pro-Israel statement gets you accused of being a Nazi.) Rouhs, says Johnson, is a Nazi who sells Nazi literature at his website -- and therefore I must be a crypto-Nazi, right? (Buckley's sage advice to Gore Vidal comes to mind at this point.)This is so incredibly, intransigent, rock-hard, impermeably and unforgivingly dumb that it almost left me speechless. That and the fact that it saves a lot of gastric acid to be prepared for either, those innocent, -wide eyed requests for "proof" from those who then nick my information to post it as their own wisdom elsewhere (you know who you are), or those who think that Europe is just the 51st state of the US of A and are miffed when told that "right wing" has a somewhat different meaning at this side of the Atlantic, makes this entry a bit belated, but the open questions are still as topical as they were a week ago.
Anyway, about Rouhs' book selection at his website: Rouhs sells material, as you can see, by the noted neo-Nazis Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Samuel Huntington, Norman Finkelstein, and Clausewitz.
Ah, but all that is just a cover for the Nazi literature that he sells, that Charles has found, right?
Such as: Does Spencer really not know for what Chomsky, Moore and Finkelstein stand? No, they are not "Nazis". In that he is right. Two of them are even Jewish and don't we all know that Jews can't be Nazis? They don't wear a black or brown uniform and they are not goosestepping around, brandishing swastika-ed banners. Should the truth be really too subtle to be understood by Robert Spencer and his likes?
Maybe. Let's start with Noam Chomsky. Maybe it was really too much trouble to find out that he is published by the Italian Neo-Nazi-publisher Barbarossa, right between the vilest Nazi scum, such as Jacques Isorni, the lawyer of Robert Brasillach:
Il Processo Brasillach - Jacques Isorni - € 6,20More from Barbarossa:
Il Controllo dei Mass Media. Le spettacolari conquiste della propaganda - Noam Chomsky - € 7,00You got the gist?(2)
La Menzogna di Giuda. I perché di un libro scomodo - Centro Studi Orion - € 5,16
Rivolte e Guerre Contadine. Storia non romanzata degli Stati Uniti d’America - Aa. Vv. - € 13,00
La Rivoluzione Fascista. Antologia di scritti politici a cura di A. Cucchi e G. Galante; in appendice articoli di J. Evola e R. Farinacci - Berto Ricci - € 8,00
Now Norm Finkelstein: The German translation of this upright anti-fascist's oevre is, for example, sold at the Neo-Nazi online shop Weltnetzladen, between books that reveal the genocidal and perverted nature of the bible, or those of Dr. Claus Nordbruch ("Machtfaktor Zionismus") who is fond of drooling over Germans as genocidal targets of Britain and America when he isn't stridently demanding "reparations" for a wronged Germany who was dealt a marked card in WWII and next to titles like "Ami go home!" or "Zwölf gute Gründe für einen Antiamerikanismus" (i.e. twelve good reasons for, you've guessed it, antiamericanism).(3)
But without doubt, Chomsky and Finkelstein are no Nazis and we all know how much Michael Moore loves America.
Even a superficial dig like this reveals such a cesspool of totalitarianism, antiamericanism, antisemitism, history revisionism and God knows what -isms, that it seems -- and indeed is -- totally irrelevant whether one labels it Nazi, or left or right or center or whatever. It is a kraken with countless tentacles obsessively feeding on its sole fodder, the hatred for America, the Ersatz-Jew and Israel, the Über-Jew. And it reaches far into the realms of other groups and parties as well, groups and parties much more respected and important than hapless Pro-Köln.
I have written about it countless times. It is the core topic of Roncesvalles. So what else is new?
The question remains whether it is asked too much from Robert Spencer to do some research. Brief, basic research, as I just did, in the Internet, would suffice. Nobody expects a crash-course of twothousand years of European and German history and culture from him. His Wikipedia entry tells us that he holds a Master's degree in the department of Religious Studies from an American university, so we can assume (or is it hope?) that he knows how to do research, to tell apart the important from the unimportant, not to let his personal opinions get in the way of the truth, and that he is able to perform a critical appraisal of his sources. That is not even intellectual integrity, that are the very basics of academic armamentarium, science 101. But the urge to be right when Charles Johnson is wrong is so overwhelming that Spencer, dumb and dull like the moron he isn't, happily commits intellectual suicide just not to be thrown out of his fool's paradise of feeling superior to Charles Johnson.
What an achievement.
(1) "For years Austrians have been warned about foreigners, indeed, about an inundation of foreigners. In 1993 the word "Überfremdung" - being overrun with foreigners - was declared the non-word of the year in Germany. Yet in 1999 a successful election campaign could be conducted in Austria with the slogan "Stop the excessive immigration." The word "Überfremdung" is hardly translatable, because the German language does not know the differentiation found in English, Italian, or Spanish between stranger and foreigner." See here.
(2) It is all available on the web. Dr. Gudrun Eussner, a political scientist, writes about it at her invaluable website for years now.
(3) Or, for example, a "conservative" book on bringing up children by Christa Müller, the wife of one of the leaders of the post-Communist party DIE LINKE, Oskar Lafontaine. By Spencer's logic, the entire shop would be above board on the strength of such immaculate leftist credentials.
Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Warner Todd Huston gives Chuck Blow the 411
Over at Newsbusters.org
NYT Columnist: 'Dark and Dangerous' Conservatives Attack Obama (Did He Miss BDS for Last 8 Yrs?)
Sometimes you just have to laugh at the Pauline Kael-like left. It seems that leftists in America are either mentally stunted or living in such an enclosed, bubble-world that they cannot discern reality from their own fantasy. Such is the case with the faux shock expressed by one Chuck Blow from The New York Times whose April 3 article is filled with the horror that some on the American right might not wish much success for a president of the United States. One must laugh at this man's alarm and wonder if he missed the last eight years where Bush, Cheney -- and at the end, even today, Palin -- were hung in effigy, where the past president was wished a long and torturous death, and where the left wanted untold horrors visited upon them and all Americans that support Republicans?
Charles' sudden awakening to the passion that politics brings is amusing if only to the extent that it is so empty of any introspection. It is hilarious that Chuck only just now had his eyes opened to enflamed political rhetoric and talk of the grave concerns for this country by many millions of his fellow Americans. Sad, in the end, that this guy thinks such vitriol has only just now come from the American right as if born fully grown and never-before-seen.
Chuck must surely have been in a coma since the year 1999.
Go read the rest here.
NYT Columnist: 'Dark and Dangerous' Conservatives Attack Obama (Did He Miss BDS for Last 8 Yrs?)
Sometimes you just have to laugh at the Pauline Kael-like left. It seems that leftists in America are either mentally stunted or living in such an enclosed, bubble-world that they cannot discern reality from their own fantasy. Such is the case with the faux shock expressed by one Chuck Blow from The New York Times whose April 3 article is filled with the horror that some on the American right might not wish much success for a president of the United States. One must laugh at this man's alarm and wonder if he missed the last eight years where Bush, Cheney -- and at the end, even today, Palin -- were hung in effigy, where the past president was wished a long and torturous death, and where the left wanted untold horrors visited upon them and all Americans that support Republicans?
Charles' sudden awakening to the passion that politics brings is amusing if only to the extent that it is so empty of any introspection. It is hilarious that Chuck only just now had his eyes opened to enflamed political rhetoric and talk of the grave concerns for this country by many millions of his fellow Americans. Sad, in the end, that this guy thinks such vitriol has only just now come from the American right as if born fully grown and never-before-seen.
Chuck must surely have been in a coma since the year 1999.
Go read the rest here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)