Fuzzy Shorts: Islam, Terrorism, and Leftist Useful Idiocy

So I’m looking at what is happening, and I’m a bit speechless.  Obama is clearly aiding and abetting ISIS.  American authority does nothing.

We. Are. Screwed.

Leftists cannot be intelligent or knowledgeable: that must be wiped out. Now.

In the hazy wake of the dust-up between crazed lunatic Ben Affleck (definitely on my “no buy list” no matter what he does; I will never ever spend one penny to support this lunatic who has made it clear that he hates me and everything that I believe in and stand for) and equally-crazed lunatic Bill Maher (he doesn’t do anything that I’d need to pay for, but if he did . . . not happening), I scratch my head.  What seems to have happened is that Affleck whined and wiggled about how anyone who opposes Islamists like ISIS is Islamophobic — good, Useful Idiot, Ben, good boy!!!, and Bill Maher, very briefly, was honest about Islam and the jihadi threat but is now walking that back because he doesn’t want to be called a Right Wing Nutjob.

And there, in that little blip of irrelevance, you see exactly what is wrong not only with the blinkered loony left but with the unblinkered loony left.  The blinkered loonies will quell, quash, quiet the unblinkered left in the name of political correctness.  Maher doesn’t defend his accurate assessment of Islamists; he worries that he’s being tarred with the right wing nutjob brush.  He’s concerned but not so concerned that he’s willing to take an actual stand. After all, the TEA Party thinks the same thing, so he can’t be right. He must be a crazy, tea bagging Nazi lunatic.  He knows he’s not, of course, but he’s not secure in that knowledge.  Everything for these types is about what other people think.  Maher backs down, backpeddles, whimpers in a corner.

There is no way that the vacant look on Affleck’s face was an affect; he is clueless, stumped, and foot-stompy mad about . . . you know, um, injustice.  Somehow.  He’s an embarrassment to all thinking peoples, but he wins because there is no room on the left for an actual “old school” democrat like Maher, believe in American exceptionalism?  RAAAACIST!  Believe in America at all on any level?  RAAACIST IMPERIAAAALIST ISLAMAPHOBE!!!  Believe what the terrorists themselves are saying about destroying Israel, Europe, and America?  Believe them when they say their goal is a global caliphate?  CLUELESS IMPERIALIST ISLAMAPHOBE SOMETHING ELSE REALLY REALLY BAD!!!

When a religious war is a religious war only to one side

ISIS is referring to American forces as the “crusaders.”

So let’s see . . . a group calling themselves the “Islamic States” and promising to fly the flag of Islam over the White House is referring to their enemies as the “crusaders”  is not engaged in a religious war.

Hmmm . . .

Does anyone know the truth about the Crusades? When and why Christians finally mobilized against the Muslim hordes?  If you don’t know, find out.  They know.  And they want another go at it.

They are doing it.  Now.  Get it?

Leftists Warn Against Moral Equivalence (Um, You Know, Unless the TEA Party, Christians, and/or Conservatives are involved)

So I’m watching some show on Fox News last night, and this crazy leftist shrew (Leslie something, maybe) was trying to explain how we can’t paint all of Islam with one brush.  This, coming from a lunatic who frequently and happily, paints all Christians, all conservatives, all anyone who disagrees with Obama as RAAAAACISTS who hate America . . . um, yeah, gonna buy that crap.

The nuanced worldview of the leftie loons typically fails to apply to any but their own protected groups.  ALL TEA Partiers are the same, ALL conservatives are the same, ALL Christians are the same, ALL anyone who is not a lockstep leftist loon is the same.

They only see nuance where none exists: in Islam.

Leftist blindness to hate among their special groups

The lesbian couple who are upset that they received black sperm is a good place to start here.  These white lesbians couldn’t be in the least bit racist, according to leftists, because they are already in a protected group.  When they whine about how they can’t cope with the nappy hair of their new child, they’re good parents . . . or something.  White people who knowingly adopt black children--those are the racists.  You know.  Somehow.

Gay people can’t be racist.  Black and Latino people can’t be against gay marriage.  Oh, just ignore the votes they cast!  Those don’t matter!  Against Prop 8?  Those Latinos?  Well, they don’t know any better; it’s not like they actually understand what homosexuality is, after all.  Stupid Latinos.

Islamic governments, not random Islamic extremists, crucify homosexuals?  Naw, that’s not true.  Oh, it is?  Well, if it is true, we have to make allowances . . . they are the stupidest, most backward people on the planet after all.  See!!! We respect the minorities and their ignorance, barbarism, and basic inability to function in civil society.  What do you expect, after all?  These are uneducated barbaric hordes who are swamped by poverty and lack of education.

What?  The majority of jihadi leaders have college educations, many from American and western universities?  Um, well, gaaaah.  That’s different.  Um, they are still mostly, you know, mostly, victims of American imperialism.  Ah, yes, the American imperialism that provided them with world class graduate degrees in engineering, biomedics, and nuclear technology?  Yeah, horrible that we inflict such advanced learning and education upon them.  Usually at tax-payer expense.

Well, that’s different.  It’s not like they can compete with us because of . . . racism and stuff.  Islamophobia!  That’s it!  That’s what’s holding them back.  If only we didn’t hate, we’d have peace and love and something like puppy breath combined with singing birds and dancing flowers.  Islam doesn’t hate women or gay people.  Yeah, sure, they crucify, behead, and stone them to death now, but that’s America’s fault. If we loved and embraced them, they’d be so happy with our degraded culture, our gay marriage, our pornography, and all of our other failing cultural mores that they wouldn’t crucify, behead, and stone us to death.

Really!

All we have to do to show our trust and faith in Islamic goodness is to disarm the American people.  Why would we need or want guns in our homes when all we face are people who are oppressed by America.  Um.  You know.  Or something.

 

Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, and the “TEA Party Terrorist”

It happens every single time there’s a shooting, a bombing, or almost any type of violent crime.  From George Zimmerman to Nidal Hasan, from Jared Loughner to Amy Bishop, from the D. C. sniper to the IRS plane crasher . . . no matter the deed, some leftist in the media starts blaming the TEA Party, either making the most outlandish accusations based on a Google search and a common name (Jim Holmes) to the outright statement that some hack writer “hopes” that the Boston bomber is a “white American”–he means, of course, white, conservative American, preferably a TEA Party member but any old white supremacist would do just fine in a pinch; after all, they’re all the same. Everyone knows that all TEA Party members are white supremacists.  And violent.  And ready to start shooting up schools, theaters, parking lots at the drop of a hat.  Except . . . well, that’s just never happened.

You know who shoots things up and bombs things?  Crazies, leftists, and jihadis.  That’s it.  I was visiting my mom when the ricin letters and the Boston marathon bombing took place, and I said to her, “the ricin guy’s a white American nutter, and the marathon bomber is a Muslim radical.”  Am I some sort of seer, one gifted with “the sight”?  Can I truly see events and their perpetrators from thousands of miles away?  What is this strange magic that enabled me to nail it within seconds of hearing of the incidents?

Logic.  Logic, more specifically, based in what we know about crazies’ and jihadis’ past actions on American soil.  Crazies do crazy stuff, they fly into IRS buildings, they mail letters laced in ricin or send bombs through the mail, they shoot up movie theaters, parking lots, high schools, even elementary schools.  What they don’t do is bomb public events.  Indeed, they don’t really use bombs all that much (McVeigh did, Bill Ayers did, and I’m sure some others).  Most of the crazies have turned out to be leftists, Obama supporters, and Obama voters, but that doesn’t damn the entire left (as certainly one loony TEA Party member would damn us all); no, crazies are mostly crazy.  Sure, they have some reason, however incoherent to sane people, for their crazy act.  It might be that they are mentally ill (as is usually the case), or it might be that they are paranoid geniuses (okay, that’s mentally ill, too); they are all pretty much the same, though, and seem to fit into two categories: political nutters (these generally leave behind rambling manifestos under a tinfoil hat paperweight, or if they survive, they become professors at top American universities) and social misfits (these don’t leave manifestos).  Well, maybe home-grown terrorism should be given its own category, because it’s not really mental illness that motivates the domestic terrorist, at least not always, sometimes it’s ideology (leftist only so far in our history)–even so, they bomb the Pentagon or some other government building; they don’t bomb marathons.

Unlike crazies and homegrown terrorists, jihadis do bomb public places.  They do it all the time, all over the world.  And right here in America.  Jihadis are driven by Islam, or if you prefer, by their radicalization, by their belief that their god wants them to kill as many non-Muslims as they can to prepare the way for the great global caliphate they failed to achieve in the early Middle Ages (those darned Crusaders put a stop to that).  Bombing the twin towers or a marathon is right up their alley.  So all in all, it wasn’t really hard to figure out which group was responsible for the Boston marathon bombing (generally speaking, I have no idea the exact affiliation of the Muslim terrorists who are responsible, but I didn’t for one minute imagine–much less HOPE–that it was a TEA Party member).

So I can look at the patterns, at what has happened, and surmise from that what is most likely to have happened in two new scenarios.  It’s not hard.  It doesn’t take any special ESP ability, and it certainly doesn’t take Islamophobia or whatever the “you’re a big RAAAACIST” charge would be.  It’s just that there are patterns of behavior one can look at.  Simple, right?

You’d think.

There have been exactly zero TEA Party bombings or attempted bombings or thwarted bombings; there have been exactly zero TEA Party shootings (mass or otherwise, though I think one guy did shoot his own television in his own living room).  Despite this lack of any reason whatsoever to imagine that any TEA Party person would be violent, each and every time something happens, leftists hoppity hop and skippety jump to their go-to conclusion that surely THIS TIME, at long long last the elusive TEA Party bomber or shooter would be spotted, perhaps leaving behind evidence in the form of a giant footprint (barefoot, of course) or some tufts of unruly hair hanging from a bush.  Or maybe there’s a grainy video of a long “TEA Party terrorist”-shaped neck skimming through the water.

For the leftist media and its devoted readers believe as firmly in this “TEA Party terrorist” as many believe in Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, and assorted other things that may or may not exist . . . but they hope they do.  This time, this time, they hope, they pray (or whatever they call it), they do little private dances of barely constrained glee at the thought that this time, oooh, if only!  Imagine!!!  A real live incident by a real live “TEA Party terrorist”!  Everything they’ve always believed would be, in that one event, instantly verified, proven beyond any doubt at all, they’d have the solid evidence they’ve so long claimed was out there but that they could never produce.  They’d have their evidence, finally, that there really is a Big Foot Loch Ness Monster “TEA Party terrorist.”  They know they’re out there . . . they can feel it in their bones.  After all, they’ve heard from someone who knows someone who saw someone who said something about seeing one . . . .

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 1: Conservatives Are RAAACIST homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists.

Okay, I have to admit that I sort of forgot about this series.  Oops.  But I had been reviewing the Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives, and here’s where we’ve been:

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 5: Conservatives are fascists.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 4: Conservatives are anti-science neanderthals.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 3: Conservatives are anti-government war-mongers.

Top 5 Lies Leftists Believe About Conservatives: Number 2: Conservatives Hate the Poor.

And here’s where we’re going (exactly where you knew we were going):

Number 1: Conservatives Are RAAACIST homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists.  No commas, probably should use hyphens, though, as that’s the breathless, said-as-one-word description of us that they have in their tiny little brains.  Wrapped up in this, of course, is the sense that we are drooling idiots who hate everyone who is unlike ourselves, toothless rednecks who shoot “others” on sight, a Bible-thumping God Squad intent on white supremacist isolationism.  And they believe it.  The “nuance” crowd, our supposed intellectual betters, have zero problem painting with broad brush every single conservative (though of course they are loathe to be so-stereotyped themselves).

I’ve thought about this post a lot, knowing it was coming, and have contemplated how I’ll approach it (a Fuzzy Rant seems so obviously in order, ya know?).  I settled on a focus on the mindset behind it rather than debunking (yet again) the idiocy of this belief.  After all, we know that we are not any of those things, with the possible exception of being Islamaphobic (that old “it’s not paranoia if ‘they’ really are out to get you” saw may be applicable here).  But it’s hardly going to be a complete post without at least mentioning the flaws on the face of that assumption, right?

Before I do that, though, I want to take a few moments (paragraphs) to examine leftist “thought.”

If your entire ideology is based on one tiny, ill-conceived, hastily-written (and later retracted) “manifesto,” it’s bound to be simple(-minded).  And if you have a wrong-headed belief that the way to transform something simple into something complex is to add more simple layers to it, then you just mire yourself in shallow thinking, tires spinning in tired mud.  Today’s leftists start with Marx, middle with Marx, and end with Marx.  Oh sure, they take their theoretical paintbrush and splash Marx paint around, but it’s always the same, simple(-minded) blather.

I used to feel so overwhelmed in graduate school, so inadequate, because my commie professors would keep insisting that [fill in the blank]ism was so “complex,” so mind-bogglingly brilliant . . .  and I just couldn’t see it.  I just sat there, nodding, thinking to myself that either they were complete morons . . . or I was.  As a graduate student, I naturally assumed the latter, and tried and tried to find something complex (or even interesting) in Showalter, Foucault,  Said, Derrida, Hegel . . . oh, the list goes on.  But it was all, all of it, at rock bottom, the same damn thing (even deconstruction, supposedly rendering a “text” “meaningless” only does so because the “meaning” is “indeterminate” or non-existent as constituting an all-out attack on . . . yep, [fill in the blank]ism. Besides, if there is no meaning, then we all need the government to step in and create it out of nothingness, right?  Uh huh.).

Being an English major at that (and this) time in our nation’s “intellectual” history was . . . shall we say, agony.  Literature wasn’t literature, every  novel, poem, play was not a novel, poem, or play; it was a “text” that had to be analyzed for oppression and for possible outlets for mass revolt sparked by one or more oppressed group.  This got tricky for the Marxists after a while, so after exhausting the dead-white-males-are-the-devil meme, they had to add to the canon works by Marxists that they claimed were “silenced” by dead, white male writers (who are, after all, the epitome of all that is wrong with the world and should therefore be . . . well, silenced.  But shhh, we don’t think too much about that).  That led to our reading, conveniently, assorted crap by radicals because they had a vagina or were black militants or . . . well, you get the picture.  We stopped reading literature and started reading political treatises disguised as literature.  All the better to dig out those “hidden” messages of oppression when we didn’t have to torture a “text” to locate them.

Every “ism” currently used to indoctrinate students is rooted in Marx (or in something he built on or that was built on his inchoate ramblings, so he becomes the secondary or tertiary conduit, but is still there, anchoring the whole mess or holding it down like some sort of ideological paper weight).  Every. Single. One.  Oh, sure, they add some layer to or under it, but it’s all the same thing: people belong to specialized “identity” groups (this is a fun spin on Marx’s focus on classes—the simple-minded just piled on layers of “oppressed” groups: women, blacks, Latinos/as, gays (then the entire spectrum of LGBT), even the planet), someone is exploiting someone else, and it’s all about money and power, and the only way to “reclaim” that money and/or power is to “revolt.”  The exploited class or gender or sexual orientation or [fill in the blank] is a victim of the exploiter (capitalist, white male, American, homophobes, whatever), and as such is “owed” recompense (or “social justice,” “economic justice,” blah-de-blah “justice”); if that recompense is not offered voluntarily (and of course it won’t be, or it wouldn’t be Marx), then it must be taken.  By any means necessary.  The ends always–always–justify the means.

RAAACIST? Misogynist? Homophobic? Really?!?

Racism, as we know, means hating someone or a group of someones because of their skin color or race.  It means thinking one’s own race superior to another, usually based on the belief that everyone else is inherently inferior because they do not share your same race.  It is narrow-minded, shallow, immoral, and basically evil.  Leftists have decided that conservatives are essentially “white males,” so any conservative, including non-white non-males, are automatically “racist.”  It’s really that simple.  They are really that simple(-minded).

Point out that TEA Party conservatives support minority, gay, and/or women candidates, and they simply declare that the minority, gay, or woman candidate is not “really” (or “authentically”) a minority, gay, or woman.  So, no, “racist” doesn’t mean what we think it means.  Not to leftists.  They can hate “niggers” all day long (and oh, yes, they all–white, black, whatever–use “the ‘N-word” with wild abandon), as long as they are conservative and therefore not authentically black.  They can publish rape fantasies about conservative women and gays, call us all sorts of horrible names, because we aren’t authentically women or gays.  To be “authentic” means to believe what they believe, to embrace victimhood and a sense of entitlement.  If you aren’t railing against every ism, outraged at every perceived slight or “coded” insult, and demanding government handouts, then you are simply not a “real” black person or a “real” woman or a “real” gay person, et al.

It’s so simple-minded, so naive, so childish, so truly wrong-headed that we’ve expended a lot of energy and time to point out leftist “hypocrisy.”  Don’t get me wrong, they are the worst sort of hypocrites, and we should absolutely call them out on it (ala Andrew Breitbart), but we need to do so in such a way that we address not only the hypocrisy but the fast and loose way they have with language and emotion.  Calling someone a racist is hurtful and damaging (well, okay, that particular card has been over-played to the point of invalidating it completely), but we may have to spend some time addressing what racism is and who is actually pushing policies that harm minorities (and gays and women) and who is pushing policies that help everyone.

Conservatives have lately been talking a lot about judging by the content of one’s character.  Leftists, on the other hand, are the ones who think that dark skin and/or a vagina are so debilitating that the government must step in to make up for them.  Darker skinned? Vaginally-afflicted?  Well, worry not, democrats have your impeded, hampered, inferior backs!  Woot!

Islamaphobic? Xenophobic? Seriously?

This one’s tougher in some ways, because I do think that I am indeed “Islamaphobic.” Something about the beheadings, the slaughter, the threats and intimidation, the homicide bombings, 9/11, the insistence that gays, women, and others that Islam considers to be subhuman should be killed in the name of Allah . . . well, go figure.  So yeah, I would have to hand this one to the leftists if it weren’t for the fact that they are also Islamaphobes, much more so and much less intelligently than we are (or than I am, can’t really call you an Islamaphobe, can I?).  They are so terrified of Islam that they seek to appease it; they ignore the treatment of women under Sharia (everything from the stonings, honor killings, sex slavery, lashings, to the second-class citizen status marked by the burkha), of gays (not allowed to live under Sharia. Period.), of all the “protected” classes they claim to defend.  They claim to abhor religious fundamentalism, but that only really means Christianity (and Judaism); they embrace Islamic fundamentalism, protect it almost jealously.

The Islamaphobia and xenophobia charges are usually rooted in their above-discussed skewed and narrow-minded view of the world (the little bit they occupy … in their heads) and is manifested in multiculturalism, the left’s latest failed great experiment.  I’ve written about this at some length before, so will keep it short here, but the gist is that if you want America to be a “melting pot” in which many cultures and races come together and meld or merge into one larger something better, then you are denying the people who choose to come here of their own free will the chance to keep the same thing from which they fled.  Go figure.  Wanting English spoken in America, wanting to protect American culture and traditions, wanting immigrants to assimilate . . . these are “xenophobic” responses of the idiot masses.  Does it matter that it’s the exact opposite of xenophobia, that welcoming foreigners into our midst, into our culture and society is the furthest thing from xenophobia?  Of course not. Not to leftists who actually insist that foreigners stick to their “own kind” and have their own separate (but “equal”) sub “communities” . . . and then have the gall to call us xenophobic.

But then, this is no real surprise, is it?  Leftists love their isolated and controllable “communities” of managed “identities” beholden only to them.  So much so that when there aren’t such “communities,” they’re happy to create them out of nothing and cause division along every line they draw be it race, sexual orientation, religion, culture, class, income level, or gender.

This is the epitome of racist homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobic misogynists and is exactly who and what leftists are.  But then, we all know they are the masters of projection.  Anything they accuse conservatives of being, we can be confident that they are the embodiment of that thing.  On steroids.

Not Hypocrisy: Inequality is the Very Foundation of a Fundamentally-Transformed America

Joel Engel writing for Legal Insurrection has penned an interesting post about Obama’s apparent double-standard when it comes to freedom of speech. From his post “Barack Obama Cannot Be Serious“:

If Barack Obama consciously intended to demonstrate his contempt for this constitutional republic and its citizens—and who knows, maybe he does—he couldn’t do it any more dramatically than tomorrow night’s event.

Think about it.  Just a few days after trying to deprive a man no one had ever heard of from enjoying his free-speech rights because some foreigners claim they were offended, the President of the United States flies off to party with another man who’s earned a pasha’s fortune exercising his own free-speech rights with language that offends many more Americans than not.

Here’s my comment on that post:

Like all leftists, Obama thinks that there is “good” speech (i.e. approved) and “bad” speech (i.e. not approved). The list of things that fall under “bad” speech is far longer than that approved but can be surmised by this administration’s characterization of “terrorists” as Americans who hold conservative values. This was first detailed in the spring of ’09 with a DHS memo that was sent to the nation’s police departments. It has since been codified by other executive branch agencies, including but not limited to the FBI, ATF, and TSA.

There is nothing really contradictory here or hypocritical. This is how totalitarianism/tyranny/communism (pick your poison) works: there are literally two separate standards. One for the “friends” of the dictator, one for his “enemies.” We keep being outraged and whinging about apparent contradictions, but there simply are none. Remember when we dems were complaining about the deadlock in Congress, and we pointed out that it’s a feature not a flaw of the Constitution? [note: I fixed a typo. Obviously not “we dems”; while writing, I switched the order of the clauses and didn’t edit carefully enough]  Think of this sort of apparent contradiction as the same thing: it’s how their worldview is constructed. To them, it’s perfectly acceptable, indeed desirable, to claim to support free speech and religious freedom while actively working against it . . . for certain people (i.e. “enemies of the state”: Christians, Jews, conservatives, et al).

Every tyrant has his enemies, and those enemies are always treated to a separate “justice” than his friends. We need to understand this because it’s important. They aren’t thinking as Americans who are bound by and proud of a Constitution that establishes liberty and justice for all. They don’t believe in equal justice, and they don’t believe in individual liberty, so the moral relativism we often engage in (I do it, too) just doesn’t apply.

I wanted to expand on this because I do think it incredibly important, particularly in light of what is going on now in the Middle East.

Conservatives often and quite naturally (and accurately, for that matter) point to the flawed moral relativism of both leftists and Ron Paul libertarians when it comes to Islamofascists and terrorism.  Yet we often forget (again, I include myself here; much of this blog is dedicated to pointing out the “hypocrisies” of the 0 administration) that the 0 “Democrats” are not democrats at all, they are Marxists and as such reject not only our free market economy (well, it’s not now, I guess, but it’s what we want to restore) but also anything that resembles individual freedom, be that freedom of speech or freedom of religion.  Remember, there is no greater enemy of Marxism than God; God means freedom, a power higher than government, real hope, real strength in a people.  Marxism cannot work, of course, but it certainly can’t work on a free, hopeful people who depend on God and not government especially if they are free to express their divergent opinions (divergent opinions are labeled “sedition” and “treason.”).  Leftists revere Mao and Che, they denounce American values and our Constitution; they hate everything we love and love everything we recognize as evil.

While it’s important to point out the vast chasm between what they say and what they do, how they unfairly apply their “justice” and “values,” it’s even more important that we not imagine it will make any difference to them.  They intend, and are fully aware that they intend, to make inequality, censorship, tyranny the order of the day, of the world.  The people we need to show this to are those Americans who’ve not yet awakened, and we cannot show them the true horror of what leftists have in store for America if we merely point to apparent “hypocrisy.”  We must also point out that it’s not actually hypocrisy at all, that unequal justice and unequal application of laws and socio-cultural norms is a part of their plan.  Their entire agenda is build on what we think of as a double standard.  It doesn’t make sense to us because we believe in equal justice, in equal opportunity, in . . . well, equality.

They do not.

We kind of know this; we point it out often enough when we express our outrage at leftist attacks on conservative radio, on Fox News, on conservative bloggers.  We point it out when we express our shock when leftists attack black and female and Latino conservatives while purporting to support and defend women and minorities.  We point it out when leftists suggest censoring conservative speech and disallowing conservative businesses.  We point it out when the administration sends out the IRS or the NLRB or the FCC or the EPA to attack conservative businesses and business owners while ignoring similar or identical offenses from leftists.  We point it out when conservatives are singled-out for legal retribution while leftists committing the same crime are either ignored or heralded.  We point this out in the treatment of the TEA Party versus that of the Occudregs.

What we haven’t managed, yet, to do is to fully grasp that this is not hypocrisy, it’s not intellectually dishonest . . . it’s reflective of their worldview: a homogenous worldview in which everyone must comply with their agenda or be damned as the “enemy,” with the full power of the state brought to bear on them.  Remember, these are people who are proud to say they are “intolerant of intolerance” and that they “hate hate.”  It’s not the intolerance or the hate they dislike, they positively revel in and celebrate their own brand of intolerance and/or hate.

Their America is a place where there is an established, intended under-class, a set group of people who are singled out for attack, regulation, injustice, suppression, and oppression.  It’s a built-in, baked-in, part of the system they seek to establish.  In their vision for a fundamentally-transformed America, there are supposed to be oppressed, silenced people; there are supposed to be people who are beneath contempt and for whom special and separate laws must be made to ensure that oppression and silence; there are supposed to be people for whom established and future law simply does not apply.

Once we grasp that quite simple fact, we may be in a better position to combat leftism for what it is, for the evil it truly seeks to inflict on this nation and her people.

Fuzzy Roundup: Obama Built This, So He Has To Go.

It’s been a crazy couple of weeks here at Fuzzy Central; lots going on that isn’t related to politics, so I’ve been all distracted and otherwise (quite happily) busy.  That’s not to say that I haven’t been paying attention to what’s going on in the world.  Oh I have, but what’s been happening has left me enraged, so much so that I simply wasn’t able to formulate even a rant.  Imagine!  I’m calm now, and ready to write, but it turns out that I’m too late (day late, dollar short. Yet again.  Heh.).  There are loads of far better writers and thinkers out there who’ve said what I would have liked to have said or what I meant to say or what I would have said if I’d blogged sooner, so here goes (do read the quoted/linked posts in their entirety; they’re that good):

First up, Conservatives on Fire, who was also enraged by the events of the past week and by their cause:

[N]o one should doubt that the attacks on our embassies and the deaths of four Americans  are the direct result of the policies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama started his presidency with an apology tour to Cairo where he apologized for America’s past arrogance in playing its role as the world’s only super power. Obama urinated all oner Israel and Netanyahu with demand that negotiations for regional peace with the Palestinians must start by Israel agreeing to return to their 1967  borders. An asinine position! Meanwhile, Hillary and her State Department were busy with their world youth movement and training young people from Tunisia and other north African countries how to use social media like Facebook and Twitter to organize protests against their dictatorial governments. And, when the fruits of her labor ignited in flames, she and the President were there to fan those flames. As an aside,how many times did we hear Hillary tell us that Assad was someone we could work with that he was different from his father; that Assad was a reformer? How has that worked out for you, Hillary? And, our know-it-all President demanded that Mubarak step down in Egypt and that the mad man Gaddafi  had to go. Then, leading from behind (translation: following the dictates of the UN) we lend our military might to helping the Libyan rebels. Many  of us on the Right, including yours truly, predicted that these destabilizing policies could only lead to the  radical islamic chaos we are seeing today. So, I repeat the title of today’s post, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton own this so-called Arab Spring. They and they alone are responsible for everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen in that region of the world.

Now, for those dear readers that decided to share in my rage today, I implore you to understand this. The events of recent days in Egypt and Libya were NOT spontaneous. And, please do not buy the horse droppings the Muslim leaders and our LSM are selling. These anti-American protests, the attacks on our embassies and the deaths of four Americans have absolutely nothing to do with some You Tube video denigrating the profit Mohammad. NOTHING! These attacks and protest were well planned and orchestrated. That they started on the anniversary to the 9/11 attacks is not a coincidence! Yes, those that planned these events needed a public excuse that they could use. They scoured the news media and the social media and You Tube looking for anything they could use as their triggering excuse and they latched on to some stupid You Tube video. I will bet my next Social Security check that the number of protesters you are seeing on television that actually saw said video could be counted on  the fingers of one hand you would have fingers left over!

Oh yes, that anger is real and righteous.  Thank goodness we are Americans who value free speech and express our rage in words and not through violence, rape, murder, and terror.

Next up is Kirsten Powers (yes, really).  Although a Democrat mouthpiece much of the time, Powers has, on more than one occasion, shown that she not only can but does think for herself.  She also is unafraid to say what she thinks when it goes against the grain of the rabid leftist lunacy.  I like that.   I respect it.  Yes, even when she’s clearly OD’d on her morning koolaid; her sometimes-sanity makes me listen to her more carefully, even when she’s wrong.  She’s not wrong here, though:

Worse, our leaders shouldn’t let our enemies know that when they kill our people and attack our embassies that the US Government will act like a battered wife making excuses for her psychotic husband. Wake up: we weren’t attacked because of a movie made by an American.  We were attacked because there are crazy religious fanatics who hate the United States. We didn’t ask for it.

Egypt’s President Morsi reportedly asked Obama “to put an end to such behavior”—presumably freedom, constitutional rights and the like — as it led to the making of, in his eyes, the offensive movie.

[snip]

Team Obama’s unseemly groveling to violent extremists has been cloaked in a newfound concern on the left for respecting religious sensibilities.  Tuesday, a liberal professor argued in USA Today that the maker of the Mohammed film should be arrested.

President Obama said in the Rose Garden: “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others” and Clinton asserted that,  “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”  Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough endorsed efforts to create “a world where the dignity of all people—and all faiths—is respected.”

Apparently our foreign policy is now being run by Dr. Phil. Someone needs to explain to the White House that our Constitution protects freedom of religion from government interference, not the protection from people who say mean, critical  or offensive things about one’s religion.
[snip]
If Christians had burned down Maher’s house in response [to one of his usual offensive comments about Christianity], would the administration put out a statement condemning the violence but pointing out that he should have respected the religious beliefs of others?

Of course not.  Nor would anyone want that.

But that is what the administration keeps doing with their responses to the attacks in the Middle East.  The condemnations are paired in with claims about respecting religious beliefs, which is implicit sympathy for the claims of some of the attackers and rioters.

She’s right.  This isn’t about a movie, but you can bet that the 0 administration will try to use it to curb our First Amendment rights.  As usual, the dinosaur media is compliant in this dismantling of our Constitution and of our God-given rights.  Leftists, you see, really do believe that Islamists are little more than wild animals, that putting up “Don’t Feed the Bears” signs will ensure that we–the more sophisticated, clearly superior people of the western free world–don’t provoke the wild beasts into some sort of barbarous rampage. According to leftist “thought,” Muslims have no human ability, you see, to reason, no free will, no intellect, no nothing resembling humanity to stop them from fomenting violence, murder, and mayhem.

You wouldn’t wave a red flag at a bull, goes their thinking, so don’t upset the subhuman Islamists.  This viewpoint is insulting.  It’s wrong.  It underscores so very much that is wrong with leftist “thought.”  But it’s what they think, and of course, they see a great opening for killing free (i.e. conservative) speech . . . a long-held goal of the regressives, who cannot abide either dissent or facts that disprove their nuttery.  And you can bet they certainly won’t let this crisis go to waste in furthering that particular goal.  So they’ll start with Sharia-compliant “don’t feed the CAIR bears” restrictions on “hurting Muslims’ religious feelings,” and then, in true regressive style, branch that out until we have no free speech at all.

Along these lines, Hans Bader of College Insurrection writes about “Liberal Professors, Egyptian Leaders, and U. S. Diplomats [who] Back Censorship of Anti-Islam Speech“:

The Obama administration was earlier criticized by law professors and legal scholars for effectively endorsing anti-blasphemy legislation at the United Nations. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh and George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin lamented the Administration’s support for proposals at the UN to restrict “hate speech” against Islam and other religions. In USA Today, liberal law professor Jonathan Turley criticized the Obama administration for endorsing a “blasphemy” exception to free speech: “Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.”

You might ask, why should we care what the Obama administration says to curry favor at the UN? After all, the First Amendment trumps customary international law, right? Well, not according to some prominent left-leaning legal scholars, such as Temple University law professor Peter Spiro. International law can undermine civil liberties either directly, by expanding the government’s enumerated powers, or indirectly, by supposedly giving the federal government a “compelling interest” for imposing an otherwise forbidden regulation.

Treaties can give the federal government the ability to impose legislation that would otherwise be beyond its enumerated powers. Congress can rely on its treaty powers to pass legislation regulating private conduct that would be beyond its power to regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause. For example, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently so ruled in United States v. Bond (2012), where it upheld a woman’s conviction for an intrastate, non-commercial crime — attempting to sicken her husband’s paramour by putting chemicals on a doorknob and car door handles — because the broad federal law under which she was prosecuted was passed to implement a chemical-weapons treaty.

Worrying.  Very much so.  So, we may well wonder, what all this means, where it comes from, and where it’s going.  Daniel Greenfield has an excellent study of “Anti-American Savages of the Post-America World“:

Let us dispense with any pretense that if we do criminalize defamation of religion or prosecute Mohammed cartoons as a hate crime, that this will be because we are tolerant or respect religion. It will be because we are afraid of Muslims and we are right to be afraid of Muslims because our leaders are gutless cowards who have no idea how to deal with anyone whose greatest fear in life isn’t being called a racist on the evening news.

And let us dispense with the pretense that the growing internationalism is humane, rational or orderly. It is nothing of the sort, it is a mob of savages that kills to convey its demands to the officials who pretend to be running a humane and rational world order and uses them as its mouthpiece. When our enlightened leaders lecture us on offending Muslims, they are acting as the interpreters for bearded thugs who believe that Jinns are around every corner, that angels are afraid of cats and that women are inferior creatures because Mohammed went down to hell and found it full of women.

Any order that takes its laws from savages will be an order of savages, no matter how urbane and cultured the men and women who have chosen to act as their international representatives, while pretending to be ours, are. The world order envisioned by 19th Century Europeans is now a secret negotiation between their criminally idiotic descendants, who still go to all the right schools, and a mob of savages and their oil-rich patrons. Their global order is not taking us to the 22nd Century, but back to the 7th Century, and of all the things that they owe us, the least of them is to be honest about that.

Leftist Anti-Americanism has revealed itself to be Post-Americanism and Post-Americanism is nothing more than savages making laws by burning and killing things. And our Anti-American and Post-American elites had better start explaining to us why being governed by Salafi savages is a moral improvement over Americanism and they had better do a good job with that explanation because the American people are watching.

Also read his “The Price of a Koran“; it’s equally good.  So what do we do in the face of all of this?  What do we do with a president who has actively supported the Islamofascists who are raping and slaughtering our citizens, raising the black flag of Islam over sovereign American territory, screaming for our heads and our souls?  We ask him, simply and clearly, as Glenn Reynolds has, to resign.

When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.” The only oath the President takes is this one:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.

He won’t resign, of course. First, the President has the appreciation of free speech that one would expect from a Chicago Machine politician, which is to say, none. Second, he’s not getting any pressure. Indeed, the very press that went crazy over Ari Fleischer’s misrepresented remarks seems far less interested in the actions of an administration that I repeat, literally sent brown-shirted enforcers to launch a midnight knock on a filmmaker’s door.

But Obama’s behavior — and that of his enablers in the press — has laid down a marker for those who are paying attention. By these actions he is, I repeat, unfit to hold office.

Hear, hear!