There’s a category here at Public Secrets called “cultural jihad,” referring to the efforts of Islamic supremacists to condition Westerners to accept sharia law through grievance mongering and the exploitation of our generally tolerant customs and multicultural guilt. Robert Spencer has called this the “Stealth Jihad,” while former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy examines it at length in his book “The Grand Jihad.”
In Europe, the process is farther along, now involving intimidation, violence, and even enclaves run by Islamic supremacists in which the police refuse to enforce the law. Hence the reason why, in the video below, British comic Pat Condell calls what’s happening in Europe “cultural terrorism.”
Pat really shouldn’t be so shy about his feelings.
NOTE: Keep in mind that when Condell refers to Islamic extremists as “the far Right,” he’s doing so in a European context, where “far Right” means “fascist.” In the US, on the other hand, I believe we’re coming to a more correct understanding — that “Right” means “limited government,” while Fascism is part of the statist, totalitarian Left. See Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” for an excellent discussion.
The code words “Geronimo – EKIA” were music to the ears of President Obama and members of his national security team who sat in the Situation Room with him on May 1 as Navy SEAL Team Six confirmed the termination of Public Enemy Number One Osama bin Laden. While most Americans are still celebrating what happened Sunday, some haven’t felt like they could fully bask in the news of OBL’s demise because the use of the name “Geronimo” to describe the operation offended them. ABC’s The Note reports on just how much this “issue” has escalated over the last couple of days as a result of the outcries from some in the Native American community:
The Senate Indian Affairs committee will hold a hearing Thursday on racist Native American stereotypes, a hearing that will now also address the Osama bin Laden mission and the code-name Geronimo.
While the hearing was scheduled before the mission, a committee aide today said the linking of the name Geronimo with the world’s most wanted man is “inappropriate” and can have a “devastating” impact on kids.
“The hearing was scheduled well before the Osama bin Laden operation became news, but the concerns over the linking of the name of Geronimo, one of the greatest Native American heroes, with the most hated enemies of the United States is an example of the kinds of issues we intended to address at Thursday’s hearing,” Loretta Tuell, the committee’s chief counsel, said in a statement.
“These inappropriate uses of Native American icons and cultures are prevalent throughout our society, and the impacts to Native and non-Native children are devastating,” Tuell said. “We intend to open the forum to talk about them.”
The Senate committee is chaired by Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii. Thursday’s 2:15p hearing will examine how Wild West shows, Hollywood films, and Indigenous-themed sports mascots have shaped the perception of Native Americans, according to a press release. […]
Good grief. Ok, so maybe in retrospect to avoid a potential “controversy” surrounding the use of the name Geronimo, the Powers That Be could have picked a more “neutral” name (cough) but, really, does the issue need to rise to this level? No. Most Americans across the country could care less about the name, probably don’t even remember it. All most people know is that OBL is gone forever, which is a comforting thought. Escalating it to the Congressional level draws unnecessary attention to an issue that probably could have been resolved with a single phone call, as Cato Institute Senior Fellow Dan Mitchell calmly explains:
In other words, some common-sense sensitivity is a good thing.
But is there any reason why the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Akaka of Hawaii, can’t make a quiet phone call and say, “I know you guys didn’t mean anything, but in the future please stay away from using code-names that link bad guys to American Indians.”
Perhaps because political posturing always takes precedence over common-sense approaches to resolving both real and imagined problems?
[…] But say what you will about the history of wildly misappropriated terms for Native Americans — Washington Redskins, anyone? — the objection boils down to the fact that a code name for Osama that referenced anything with any redeeming qualities whatever would be drawing fire from some quarter.
So in case this happens again, here are 10 totallly inoffensive code names to use instead:
10. Flo From Those Progressive Commercials.
8. IKEA, if only so that you can say, “IKEA EKIA!”
7. Windows Vista
6. That Time “Crash” Beat “Brokeback Mountain” for Best Picture
A bit of humor to wash away the sour taste from those last videos: PJTV‘s Andrew Klavan pokes fun at mindless multiculturalism and political correctness by looking at the heretofore unknown sufferings of a religious minority right here in America: Satan-worshipers.
How true. It’s dreadfully insensitive of us to call Old Scratch evil just because he’s evil. We should instead say he’s “differently morally enabled.”
Don’t try to weasel out of it. We see you over there, with your doubts and your skepticism, muttering about Medieval Warm Periods and “hiding the decline.” You don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming, do you? You’re a denier, and that makes you a criminal!
And I have that on the authority of two experts in the field: Google CEO Erik “Creepy” Schmidt and director James Cameron:
Tammy Bruce (bio) , an online talk-host, is an independent conservative and openly gay. For that seemingly odd mixture, she’s often found herself savagely attacked by people who used to be her allies when she was a liberal. In the UK’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper she talks about what it’s really like to be out, proud, and conservative:
Having made my point, I trust, I’ll now slip out of my snark suit and share a little secret with you. The real story of bigotry and intolerance is the fact that it lives and thrives on the left. As a gay woman who spent most of her adult life pushing the cart for liberal causes with liberal friends in a liberal city, I found that sexism, racism and homophobia are staples in the liberal world. The huge irony is liberals spend every ounce of energy promoting the notion that they are the banner carriers of individualism and personal freedom, yet the hammer comes down on anyone who dares not to conform to, or who dissents even in part from, the liberal agenda.
Think about what would happen if you did act up? If you dared to say you like Sarah Palin, or admire Margaret Thatcher, or think global warming is a hoax, or think Bill Clinton is a sexual predator, or that George W Bush isn’t to blame for everything, or that Barack Obama has absolutely no clue what he’s doing, you know there would be a price to pay. Odds are that your “liberal” friends would very liberally hate you. At the very least, being shunned would be your new experience, condemning you to suffer that horrific liberal malady called social death.
So, when it comes to my comfort level as a conservative who happens to be gay, here’s what I know: while many conservatives are people of faith and their religion promotes a very different point of view than mine on homosexuality (and a few other things!), I have found conservatives to be more tolerant, more curious and more understanding of those who are different to them than I ever did when ensconced in US liberal leadership.
It’s a good piece, and praise to the Guardian for being open-minded enough to carry it, something I doubt you’d find much of in the left-liberal mainstream media here in the US.
The move came after Mr. Williams, who is also a Fox News political analyst, appeared on the “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday. On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”
Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.
He continued: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”
Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts,” Mr. Williams said.
And for that, Williams was fired:
NPR said in its statement that the remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.”
So, let me get this straight. In an era when Muslims bent on jihad blow themselves up on crowded buses and in pizza parlors, when Muslims bent on jihad hijack planes and kill nearly 3,000 Americans in one day, when a Muslim bent on jihad takes to heart the Islamic doctrine of Wala’ wa Bara’ (“loyalty and enmity”) and guns down his fellow soldiers, when even the general manager of al-Arabiya television says…
It is certainly true that not all Muslims are terrorists, however, sadly we say that the majority of terrorists in the world are Muslims.
…Juan Williams admitted to a very human failing: he gets nervous around Muslims. He’s not saying every Muslim is a terrorist; he is not saying he hates all Muslims or that all Muslims are jihadists. He is admitting to an instinctive reaction based on years of witnessing horrifying things done by Muslims waging jihad.
News flash: I was once robbed at gunpoint by a Black man. To this day, I still get a bit nervous when a Black male stranger approaches me on the street. It’s irrational, I usually ignore it, but it’s still there: a normal human reaction based on our survival instinct. And I bet if you look around hard enough, you’ll find Black men who have had bad experiences with White cops and get nervous when encountering another White cop.
Would NPR fire them, too?
What this really shows is how narrow the limits are on free speech at that bastion of liberalism, National Public Radio. Express an opinion beyond the bounds of progressive, multicultural orthodoxy and you get punished. And it’s another example of how the Left in general pays only lip service to intellectual freedom: you have the freedom to express any thought as long as it’s on the approved list.
Conservative women, minorities who stray off the liberal reservation, and Black liberal pundits who are honest about their feelings, on the other hand, can just shut up.
PS: Why in God’s name is the United States government giving taxpayer money to a media organization that punishes people for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech?
PPS: And how odd this happened right after “progressive” billionaire (and Nazi collaborator) George Soros’ “Open Society Foundation” a $1.8 million grant to pay for more reporters. Must be a coincidence.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) is taking major fire from the demagoguing left and, sadly, the right, over remarks he made to BP earlier today regarding the $20 billion dollar “deal” that was struck w/ the WH:
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) is under fire from the White House and the Beltway media for his statement to BP today: “I’m only speaking for myself. I’m not speaking for anyone else, but I apologize. I do not want to live in a county where anytime a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, [it is] subject to some sort of political pressure that, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown.”
Barton should have been apologizing to the American people, not BP, but other than that he is 100% correct. What happened in the White House yesterday was a “shakedown” of Godfather-like proportions. Lets review:
Make sure to read the whole thing.
It’s despicable how not only Democrats like Nancy Pelosi are outright lying about what Barton (and, in fact, other GOPers have said/did on the “shakedown” issue (“Americans are suffering in the Gulf while Republicans apologize to Big Oil. We need clean energy now,” but also how House Republican “leaders” responded after the slams from the WH and Democrat “leaders”:
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Tex., was ordered by the top House leadership to retract his apology to BP and to apologize for making the statement in the first place or risk losing his position on a powerful House committee.
A GOP leadership aide tells The Washington Examiner that House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio and Rep. and Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., met with Barton this afternoon and warned him, “Apologize immediately or you will lose your position, immediately.”
But the damage may be done. The GOP rank-and-file are quite angry over the comment and some are calling for him to lose his position as ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
“Now that he has apologized we’ll see what happens going forward,” the aide said.
I can tell this “aide” what will happen going forward, at least as far as many conservative voters are concerned. They will continue contributing money to individual candidates rather than giving any to the NRCC precisely because of BS like this. Here you have a Republican Congressman standing on principle regarding what the WH is trying to do to BP, and as soon as the Democrats start wailing about “this just proves the GOP are in the pockets of Big Oil” they retreat and go into “crisis” mode when really they should be standing by his side. This is nothing more than throwing one of your own under the bus in the interest of political expediency … something Barack Obama normally does, but something we should not.
Don’t they ever learn?
BTW, here’s was Barton’s apology – which was actually more of a “I’m sorry my comments were minsconstrued” than an actual “retraction”:
By midafternoon, Barton was back on the dais with a statement that was something short of what the leaders had demanded.
“I want the record to be absolutely clear that I think BP is responsible for this accident,” he said. “If anything I said this morning has been misconstrued, in opposite effect, I want to apologize for that misconstruction.”
Barton then issued, and Boehner’s office forwarded out a somewhat different written statement.
“I apologize for using the term ‘shakedown’ with regard to yesterday’s actions at the White House this morning, and I retract my apology to BP,” it began, and finished: “I regret the impact that my statement this morning implied that BP should not pay for the consequences of their decisions and actions in this incident.”
Want to show Barton, who is up for re-election in Texas’ 6th district, your support? Click here and/or here.
After race hustlers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton got their wish, which was to have Rush Limbaugh dropped from the group bidding on ownership of the St. Louis Rams football franchise, a lot of people are weighing in in the aftermath, including Rush himself.
In an opinion piece published yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, Rush provides a mini-recap of the week’s events, and how it came to be that he was forced out of the Rams bid from David Checketts (via Memeorandum):
David Checketts, an investor and owner of sports teams, approached me in late May about investing in the St. Louis Rams football franchise. As a football fan, I was intrigued. I invited him to my home where we discussed it further. Even after informing him that some people might try to make an issue of my participation, Mr. Checketts said he didn’t much care. I accepted his offer.
Having brought me into his group [and succumbing to NFL pressure over racist quotes Rush never uttered], Mr. Checketts now wanted a way out. He asked me to resign. I told him no way. I had done nothing wrong. I had not uttered the words these people were putting in my mouth. And I would not bow to their libels and pressure. He would have to drop me from the group. A few days later, he did.
The most disturbing thing about this? That the race card has been played again, and so effectively:
As I explained on my radio show, this spectacle is bigger than I am on several levels. There is a contempt in the news business, including the sportswriter community, for conservatives that reflects the blind hatred espoused by Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson. “Racism” is too often their sledgehammer. And it is being used to try to keep citizens who don’t share the left’s agenda from participating in the full array of opportunities this nation otherwise affords each of us. It was on display many years ago in an effort to smear Clarence Thomas with racist stereotypes and keep him off the Supreme Court. More recently, it was employed against patriotic citizens who attended town-hall meetings and tea-party protests.
These intimidation tactics are working and spreading, and they are a cancer on our society.
How could this have happened, Diana West asks, when you consider what apparently IS acceptable to the NFL:
I will start with two words: Keith Olbermann. In addition to his nightly gig on MSNBC — a numbing blend of Leftist politics and something approaching Tourette’s syndrome — Olbermann is a co-host of NBC’s “Football Night in America,” the pre-game show that leads into “Sunday Night Football.” Naturally, that would be Sunday night NFL football.
This job, now into its third season, makes Olbermann not a team owner, of course, but certainly a public face of the NFL. And a public face of the NFL with many filthy things coming out of it. These include, just sampling from recent days, his pronouncement that Limbaugh claiming his own success paved the way for Glenn Beck is “is like congratulating yourself for spreading syphilis.” We could slap a headline on that — “NFL talker compares star radio and TV conservatives with venereal disease” — except that trash talk against conservatives doesn’t generate mainstream outrage.
Take Olbermann’s noxious attack this week on Michelle Malkin for what he characterized as her “total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”
Get that? Olbermann calls an accomplished and best-selling conservative author, commentator, blogger, wife and mother (who also happens to be beautiful) a “big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick,” but such dehumanizing venom doesn’t count as controversial, or even lightly strain his NBC-NFL connection. Why, at this rate, he could end up on a box of Wheaties. His comments certainly don’t rate as “divisive” or “inappropriate” – two of the coded charges leveled at Rush Limbaugh’s “public remarks” by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay that got Limbaugh’s blackball rolling in the first place.
And that’s not all. Stage Right has a good rundown of what else is apparently acceptable by the NFL from some current NFL team owners. Double standards, anyone? You betcha.
What does this all mean for the state of conservatism? Back to West:
It goes down in the annals as the day the demonization of conservatism achieved not consensus, but normalcy, and the day the marginalization of conservatives became not a public sport but a civic duty. Think about it. What happened to Limbaugh didn’t happen to a “dead white male” on a college campus; nor did it happen to a live white male in a government-mandated “sensitivity course.” What happened to Limbaugh took place in a uniquely exclusive slice of the private sector frequented by the super-mega-rich and ostentatious, the kind of people with the kind of money that buys protection from the pressures of what is thought of as public opinion. But what happened to Rush Limbaugh – call it “Rush-baiting” — reveals that what conservative blogger Lawrence Auster calls the “dictatorship enforced by the charge of racism” has absolutely no boundaries.
But with the successful transformation of Limbaugh the potential team owner into Limbaugh the expendable “distraction,” his brand of opposition — a plain-speaking adherence to a conservatism best described as Reaganesque — has been judged unfit, unworthy even, for the sports-loving mainstream and sentenced to the margins. And that is what is most disturbing about this story. Conservatism in our time has been publicly defined as extremism. Which means, for conservatives, it’s time for some intensive historical revisionism of our own.
As for the NFL, Macsmind has some ideas about payback. Not sure it will make a difference, but it’s worth a shot.
A story of political correctness gone crazy in Atlanta:
In the battle of the sexes, women’s magazine editor Cynthia Good said this was a skirmish she had to fight.
Across Atlanta they stood, orange signs with black letters that read “Men At Work” or “Men Working Ahead.”
Sometimes, the signs stood next to women working alongside the men.
Good demanded Atlanta officials remove the signs and last week, Atlanta Public Works Commissioner Joe Basista agreed.
Score one for gender equality, Good said Wednesday.
“They get it,” Good said about the city in a telephone interview.
Public Works officials are replacing 50 “Men Working” with signs that say “Workers Ahead.” It will cost $22 to cover over some of the old signs and $144 to buy new signs, said Public Works spokeswoman Valerie Bell-Smith said.
Good, founding editor of Atlanta-based PINK Magazine, a publication that focuses on professional women, said she’s not stopping with Atlanta.
“We’re calling on the rest of the nation to follow suit and make a statement that we will not accept these subtle forms of discrimination,” said Good, 48.
Good pressed the issue after Atlanta police came to her office last month on a complaint that she spray painted “wo” onto a “Men At Work” sign.
Atlanta union leader Gina Pagnotta said some women employees of Atlanta Public Works complained about these signs years ago.
“It is a little bit bias to say ‘Men Working,’ ” said Pagnotta, president of the Professional Association of City Employees. “Women are working, too.”
This is as stupid as the whole manhole vs. personhole cover “debate.” Don’t these self-important nitwits have anything better to do?
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today that the Lehigh Valley IronPigs decided to change the name of their mascot to something less ‘offensive’ due to outrage over the nickname “PorkChop” by a Hispanic group:
Just two days after naming its mascot “PorkChop,” the Philadelphia Phillies’ new minor league franchise dropped the nickname after getting complaints from Hispanics that it was offensive.
The Lehigh Valley IronPigs – whose mascot is a giant, fuzzy pig – had chosen PorkChop from more than 7,000 fan entries. The team announced Monday that the mascot will now be dubbed “Ferrous.”
General Manager Kurt Landes said he heard from several Hispanics who said PorkChop was derogatory.
“We were really unaware of any negative connotations with the word ‘pork chop,”‘ he said. “If it offended a few, it’s a few too many.”
Guillermo Lopez, vice president of the Latino Leadership Alliance, said he was called “pork chop” when he worked at Bethlehem Steel decades ago.
“If my parents were alive, they’d be having fits,” said Lopez, among those who complained to the team. “It meant much more to them than it does to Puerto Ricans now in the Lehigh Valley.”
The IronPig’s new nickname – Ferrous – comes from the Latin word “ferrum,” which means relating to or containing iron. Ferrous was the most popular submission in the “Name the Mascot” competition. The name received 235 of the 7,345 suggestions.
Blogger Grande Pescados had this to say in response to the alleged derogatory nature of the term “pork chop,” as well as to the complaints from Lopez:
Now, I’ve been called and know lots of deragatory terms for Hispanics – wetback, fence jumper, border hopper, greaser, beaner, Lupe – but never in my life have I been called a ‘pork chop’ and I know quite a few people that are walking Wikipedias when it comes to racist terminology (in high school it was sort of a pass time to rip on each other’s ethnicity during lunch, baseball games, etc – for coming from a small town I would say we were a rather tolerant and open group when it came to shredding each other racially). Pork chop doesn’t even make any [edited – ST] sense.
People like Guillermo Lopez make me sick as an American with a Hispanic mother and as a man. Rather than take up causes that would truly make a difference he decides to get into a bitchy little slap fight over the name of a Triple AAA baseball team. I guess all the real issues Americans if Hispanic descent have been solved if this is the only issue Lopez can gin up to justify his paycheck.
WFMZ reports that Ferrous is an unoriginal name for the IronPigs mascot, as he shares his name with a minor league mascot in Maryland. The team name? The Aberdeen IronBirds.
Poor thing just can’t catch a break.
Hang in there, PorkChop, er, Ferrous, er –
whatever your name is!