Looking at history, it is fairly clear that we were at war with Communism. We had regional proxy wars, and the Cold War. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson had no problem defining who the enemy was. Did that mean every Russian, every Chinese citizen, or every Cuban believed in Communism? Did it mean that every citizen of every Communist state believed in extending the reach of Communism across the globe? Of course not. No more than every single Muslim believes in violent jihad, or forcing all the world's people to live under Sharia law.
But just how many Muslims do believe in being governed under Sharia law? According to a Pew Research Center report of 12/7/15 by Michael Lipka, 25 countries have Muslim populations in which at least 50% of the Muslims would like to see Sharia law govern. The percentages range from 52% to 99%, when we only count countries with 50% or more agreeing. These countries include Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Niger, Djibouti, Congo, Nigeria, Uganda, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Kenya, Mali, Ghana, Senegal, Cameroon and Liberia.
We know that Communist states were totalitarian states. We know that Communists did not believe in what we in the West consider to be basic civil rights - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble and petition the government. Is there any similarity to Sharia law? No freedom of speech. The Organization of Islamic States has been trying for years to get the UN to criminalize any speech critical of Islam. We have seen how death threats are made against those who criticize Islam. We have seen the actual killings at Charlie Hebdo. No freedom of religion. In some Muslim countries it is a crime punishable by death to convert from Islam to another religion. And do not look for churches or synagogues in some Muslim countries. Freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government for change? That did not work out well in Iran with their "Green Revolution."
So, we see how both Communist ideology and Islam's Sharia law are inconsistent with basic American and Western values.
Are there other differences between Sharia law and Western values? You bet. According to an article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the June 14, 2016 Wall Street Journal, at least 40 Muslim countries/territories criminalize homosexuality. You think the Orlando murderer was alone in his beliefs about homosexuality? According to an article in the 6/13/16 Washington Post, at least 10 Muslim countries have the death penalty for certain homosexual acts. Some have death by stoning; when the punishment is less than death it may be imprisonment and/or flogging. Inconsistent with Western values? You bet.
How about Muslim countries treatment of women? It does vary, but we also know how extreme some are. Some countries have large percentages of their populations that do not believe women should be able to choose their own clothing. 56% in Tunisia, 52% in "westernized" Turkey, 49% in Lebanon and 47% in Saudi Arabia, to name a few.
You think that the disgustingly named "honor killings" occur only overseas? The American Conservative said that the Justice Department estimates that there are 27 "honor killings" yearly right here in the USA. One can surmise that there are many more than 27, as the victims are dead, unable to report their own deaths. When killed by their own families, there is no one to complain. Yes, I fully acknowledge that many in the Muslim community condemn such killings. But one must ask how there is a culture that sustains such killings.
Whether women are allowed to be out in public without a man, get an education, work, hold public office can all vary from country to country. So, Obama wants to fight "violent extremists," not "radical Islamists." But,as John Guandolo opined (see Part V), how do we develop a strategy without identifying the enemy. Is the enemy only those who carry out violent attacks? Is the enemy those who support those terrorists, even if they do not participate? Or, can we say that the ideology that supports not just the Islamic terrorists but also a way of viewing the world that is completely contrary to American, Constitutional and Western values is the real problem?
Once again, I fully acknowledge those Muslims who do not support terrorism or jihad, and who do not want to live by Sharia law nor enforce it upon others. But not all Germans supported Hitler, not all Chinese supported Mao, and not all Russians supported Stalin. It is unclear to this writer why identifying the true enemy can ever be an insult to those who do not hold such radical, anti-American beliefs. It is time for Obama and the left to face reality. Or, we can just continue to blame everything that happens on the Republicans, as the New York Times does.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Are We At War With Islam? Part V
(Note: A comment to the last two part post raised the issue of whether "radical" Islam in fact is typical of all Islam. For newer readers, please note that I previously posted a 4 part series on whether we are at war with Islam. Part I was posted on 8/29/10, Part II on 9/13/10, Part III on 9/30/12 and Part IV on 6/6/13. The topics ranged from Islamic propaganda, Islamic influence on education, the Ground Zero mosque, limits on free speech, lack of tolerance, and media bias. It appears that this is an appropriate time for Part V.)
Following the Orlando massacre, President Obama felt compelled to push back against Republicans who have criticized his refusal to use the phrase "radical Islam" for the 7 1/2 years of his Presidency. Said Obama: "That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them "radical Islamists." Obama went on: "What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above...this is a political distraction."
Just a distraction? According to the Washington Times (4/25/13), in 2011 the "White House ordered cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive." This order affected all federal law enforcement, intelligence and military training manuals and courses, resulting in "teachings on Islam be(ing) scrubbed." Is this a good idea? Was it smart that Obama allowed CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America, 2 unindicted co-conspirators in the case involving illegal funding of Hamas, to determine what should be taught to those who defend us in the fight against Islamic terror?
John Guandolo was a counter-terrorism agent in the FBI. His opinion on Obama's order is quite frightening: "There is no strategy in the FBI...At FBI headquarters it is a daily fire drill. The threats come in, and they run around to deal with them and run them down. But because none of it can have anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood's movement in the United States or Islam, they never address the root cause and common investigative realities."
We already have far too many examples of Americans dying because of Obama's order. Major Nidal Hasan was able to carry out his murderous attack at Fort Hood even though the Army knew of his radical Islamist ties. Political correctness ordered by Obama prevented action against him beforehand. After the 9/11 Benghazi attack, Obama and Hillary both lied about the cause of the attack, preferring to blame a movie video over the true cause - radical Islamic terror. And now we have had the attack in Orlando. The FBI was well aware of the killer beforehand. It has been reported that he even told them that he wanted to die a martyr. Yet, he was not even under constant surveillance.
For the left, and much of the mainstream media, it is clear with whom we are at war - Republicans! That's right. This is from the lead editorial in the 6/15/16 New York Times (really): "While the precise motivation for the rampage (in Orlando) remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. X (the truth-uncensored refuses to use his name) was driven by hatred towards gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don't happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish."
The Times concluded their editorial with this: "The 49 people killed in Orlando were victims of a terrorist attack. But they also need to be remembered as casualties of a society where hate has deep roots." So, for the Times, Republicans, society and hate are the real perpetrators. Nowhere in their editorial do they mention that the real perpetrator was a Muslim; nowhere does the Times mention the motivating factor of radical Islam and ISIS. This is the newspaper that calls itself "the paper of record." We on the right know it to be "the paper of left-wing propaganda and lies."
So, are we at war with radical Islam? Should we be? Or, does all of Islam currently have serious problems that should cause us to be at war with Islam? Please see Part VI.
Following the Orlando massacre, President Obama felt compelled to push back against Republicans who have criticized his refusal to use the phrase "radical Islam" for the 7 1/2 years of his Presidency. Said Obama: "That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them "radical Islamists." Obama went on: "What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above...this is a political distraction."
Just a distraction? According to the Washington Times (4/25/13), in 2011 the "White House ordered cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive." This order affected all federal law enforcement, intelligence and military training manuals and courses, resulting in "teachings on Islam be(ing) scrubbed." Is this a good idea? Was it smart that Obama allowed CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America, 2 unindicted co-conspirators in the case involving illegal funding of Hamas, to determine what should be taught to those who defend us in the fight against Islamic terror?
John Guandolo was a counter-terrorism agent in the FBI. His opinion on Obama's order is quite frightening: "There is no strategy in the FBI...At FBI headquarters it is a daily fire drill. The threats come in, and they run around to deal with them and run them down. But because none of it can have anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood's movement in the United States or Islam, they never address the root cause and common investigative realities."
We already have far too many examples of Americans dying because of Obama's order. Major Nidal Hasan was able to carry out his murderous attack at Fort Hood even though the Army knew of his radical Islamist ties. Political correctness ordered by Obama prevented action against him beforehand. After the 9/11 Benghazi attack, Obama and Hillary both lied about the cause of the attack, preferring to blame a movie video over the true cause - radical Islamic terror. And now we have had the attack in Orlando. The FBI was well aware of the killer beforehand. It has been reported that he even told them that he wanted to die a martyr. Yet, he was not even under constant surveillance.
For the left, and much of the mainstream media, it is clear with whom we are at war - Republicans! That's right. This is from the lead editorial in the 6/15/16 New York Times (really): "While the precise motivation for the rampage (in Orlando) remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. X (the truth-uncensored refuses to use his name) was driven by hatred towards gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don't happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish."
The Times concluded their editorial with this: "The 49 people killed in Orlando were victims of a terrorist attack. But they also need to be remembered as casualties of a society where hate has deep roots." So, for the Times, Republicans, society and hate are the real perpetrators. Nowhere in their editorial do they mention that the real perpetrator was a Muslim; nowhere does the Times mention the motivating factor of radical Islam and ISIS. This is the newspaper that calls itself "the paper of record." We on the right know it to be "the paper of left-wing propaganda and lies."
So, are we at war with radical Islam? Should we be? Or, does all of Islam currently have serious problems that should cause us to be at war with Islam? Please see Part VI.
Monday, June 13, 2016
Massacre in Orlando, Part II
Today, Hillary Clinton spoke about what happened in Orlando. I agreed with her when she said that Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries, needed to end their support for radical mosques in the US and around the world. But merely saying it does not make it so. Otherwise, FDR would have told Hitler that he needed to stop invading other countries and stop the Holocaust. And why should I, or anyone, believe that Hillary is serious about taking on the Saudis?
Hannity reported today that the Clinton Foundation has accepted $25 million from the Saudis alone. Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive regimes to women and to gays. Recall after 9/11 when a Saudi Prince offered $10 million to Mayor Rudy Giuliani to help rebuild New York City. But the Prince suggested that US policies in the Middle East contributed to the 9/11 attacks. In refusing the money, Giuliani said: "I entirely reject that statement. There is no moral equivalent for this act. There is no justification for it." Rudy has principles, and he stood by them. Who knows how much of the Clinton Foundation money may ultimately benefit the Clintons. And where were their principles?
The Clintons take money from the Saudi regime, but she is the pro-women candidate? Please. Maybe someone can explain to me where all the outrage is from women about this issue. Hillary also wishes to bring to the US tens of thousands more Muslim refugees. Some Muslim countries punish homosexuality with imprisonment or death. Individual Muslims, such as the murderer in Orlando, are offended by the idea of homosexuality. Yet, even after this horrific attack, I would predict that gays will overwhelmingly vote for Hillary. They will vote for a candidate who will bring people to this country, knowing that at least some of those people would like to see them dead. As I said in my January 17, 2016 post, many on the left have lost the natural instinct to survive. That survival instinct has been overcome by political correctness, and left-wing ideology.
President Obama spoke yesterday following the Orlando massacre. He did refer to the terrible atrocity as "an act of terror," as well as "an act of hate." He added: "We've reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer." Except, that early on it was known that the murderer was motivated by radical Islam. He shouted Allahu Akbar during the attack. But at no time during his speech did Obama utter the words "Muslim" or "Islam" or even "radical Islam." At no time during his 7 1/2 years in office has Obama been able to figure out how all these terrorist killings might be connected. Well, he certainly does know; the real question is why he refuses to ever say it.
FoxNews.com published a piece by John Bolton, former ambassador to the UN. Bolton explained that these radical Islamic terror groups are not organized the way a government or corporation is. People are not sitting in offices exchanging memos. They use social media to get their message out. There has already been talk of whether this latest attacker had connections to any terror group, or if he was a "lone wolf." But, as Bolton explains, "...the number of true "lone wolf" terrorists is infinitesimal." From which one might conclude, why would we bring more potential "lone wolf" terrorists to our shores. Why, until ISIS is destroyed, and they are unable to preach their radical jihadist ideology, would we want to do that?
As Bolton went on to say: "...the United States must urgently discard the fiction that we pay no price for not pursuing international terrorists vigorously and relentlessly." After noting the "lackadaisical" way that Obama has targeted terrorist bases, Bolton said this: "Obama manifestly believes that, as bad as terrorists are, American "overreaction" is worse." Obama has consistently shown that he does not believe in the use of American power - in any form. He believes the US needs to step back from the world stage and let others come to the fore.
But, as this blog has frequently noted, the withdrawal of US involvement does not generally result in the rest of the free world leading the way. No, the result is that tyrannical governments, like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, feel empowered by US withdrawal. Even more so does that apply to terrorist groups such as ISIS.
If you do not care about your own survival, then I hope that you will think of your children and grandchildren when you go to vote. If you think radical Islam is the problem, Trump is your candidate. If you think guns are the problem, and that notwithstanding the Clinton's close ties to the Saudis ($25 million tends to create those ties) that Hillary will be tough on them and their funding of radical mosques throughout this country, then Hillary is for you. If, contrary to all evidence, you believe that people are basically good, then Hillary is for you. But if you understand that the world is filled with bad actors, then you side with Trump.
Hannity reported today that the Clinton Foundation has accepted $25 million from the Saudis alone. Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive regimes to women and to gays. Recall after 9/11 when a Saudi Prince offered $10 million to Mayor Rudy Giuliani to help rebuild New York City. But the Prince suggested that US policies in the Middle East contributed to the 9/11 attacks. In refusing the money, Giuliani said: "I entirely reject that statement. There is no moral equivalent for this act. There is no justification for it." Rudy has principles, and he stood by them. Who knows how much of the Clinton Foundation money may ultimately benefit the Clintons. And where were their principles?
The Clintons take money from the Saudi regime, but she is the pro-women candidate? Please. Maybe someone can explain to me where all the outrage is from women about this issue. Hillary also wishes to bring to the US tens of thousands more Muslim refugees. Some Muslim countries punish homosexuality with imprisonment or death. Individual Muslims, such as the murderer in Orlando, are offended by the idea of homosexuality. Yet, even after this horrific attack, I would predict that gays will overwhelmingly vote for Hillary. They will vote for a candidate who will bring people to this country, knowing that at least some of those people would like to see them dead. As I said in my January 17, 2016 post, many on the left have lost the natural instinct to survive. That survival instinct has been overcome by political correctness, and left-wing ideology.
President Obama spoke yesterday following the Orlando massacre. He did refer to the terrible atrocity as "an act of terror," as well as "an act of hate." He added: "We've reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer." Except, that early on it was known that the murderer was motivated by radical Islam. He shouted Allahu Akbar during the attack. But at no time during his speech did Obama utter the words "Muslim" or "Islam" or even "radical Islam." At no time during his 7 1/2 years in office has Obama been able to figure out how all these terrorist killings might be connected. Well, he certainly does know; the real question is why he refuses to ever say it.
FoxNews.com published a piece by John Bolton, former ambassador to the UN. Bolton explained that these radical Islamic terror groups are not organized the way a government or corporation is. People are not sitting in offices exchanging memos. They use social media to get their message out. There has already been talk of whether this latest attacker had connections to any terror group, or if he was a "lone wolf." But, as Bolton explains, "...the number of true "lone wolf" terrorists is infinitesimal." From which one might conclude, why would we bring more potential "lone wolf" terrorists to our shores. Why, until ISIS is destroyed, and they are unable to preach their radical jihadist ideology, would we want to do that?
As Bolton went on to say: "...the United States must urgently discard the fiction that we pay no price for not pursuing international terrorists vigorously and relentlessly." After noting the "lackadaisical" way that Obama has targeted terrorist bases, Bolton said this: "Obama manifestly believes that, as bad as terrorists are, American "overreaction" is worse." Obama has consistently shown that he does not believe in the use of American power - in any form. He believes the US needs to step back from the world stage and let others come to the fore.
But, as this blog has frequently noted, the withdrawal of US involvement does not generally result in the rest of the free world leading the way. No, the result is that tyrannical governments, like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, feel empowered by US withdrawal. Even more so does that apply to terrorist groups such as ISIS.
If you do not care about your own survival, then I hope that you will think of your children and grandchildren when you go to vote. If you think radical Islam is the problem, Trump is your candidate. If you think guns are the problem, and that notwithstanding the Clinton's close ties to the Saudis ($25 million tends to create those ties) that Hillary will be tough on them and their funding of radical mosques throughout this country, then Hillary is for you. If, contrary to all evidence, you believe that people are basically good, then Hillary is for you. But if you understand that the world is filled with bad actors, then you side with Trump.
Massacre in Orlando, Part I
It happened yet again. Another Islamist inspired massacre of people just living their lives. This time it was at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Just recently, it was at a cafe in Tel Aviv, Israel. And it seems like yesterday that we were mourning the San Bernardino killings committed by a coworker of the victims; a coworker motivated by radical Islam. The list of killings committed in the name of Islam is long, and I will not repeat them all. Nor will I, as is my policy, name the perpetrator.
The reactions also are all too predictable. One site posted some tweets from the Hollywood crowd. Ariana Grande said: "How how how how can one have so much hate?" Kirstie Alley tweeted: "I can't fathom this kind of hatred and insanity. Paul Feig: "There's enough hate in this world. It's just too much...Enough hate."
I have to admit, I have difficulty understanding such comments about "hate." My first issue with addressing the problem as being one of "hate" is this: is there some ideology called "hate" that has numerous followers throughout the world? What are the main tenets of this "hate" ideology? Who are the leaders of "hate"? Assuming we are correct in referring to what happened as "hate," we need to be clear that this hatred flows from a very specific ideology called radical Islam. (One can question whether this hatred flows from all of Islam, but that topic is not being addressed here.) So, it is simply incorrect to refer to "hate" as any kind of motivating factor in these types of atrocities. But if we must use the term "hate" let's at least use it properly: "hate inspired by radical Islam." There is no separate "hate" ideology.
The second issue I have with the use of the term "hate" is the way it is discussed as if it were some unnatural phenomenon. The left incorrectly assumes that people are inherently good. Conservatives tend to believe that goodness is taught. Anyone who asks how there can be such "hate" in the world is obviously unfamiliar with all of history. Such people have no knowledge of Hitler and the Nazis, Mao and the Red Chinese, Pol Pot and the killing fields of Cambodia, Stalin and Soviet Russia, Rwanda, Sudan and on and on. One hundred million people killed in the Twentieth Century. How can anyone believe that people are basically good? Do not misunderstand; there are many good and fine people in the world. Unfortunately, there are also many bad and evil people.
The other predictable reaction was the overwhelming call for more gun control. Julianne Moore tweeted: "How many people have to be killed before we act as a nation to # End Gun Violence?" The June 13, 2016 LA Times: "While it is essential to understand the motivations of the gunman, that shouldn't distract us from the issue of all-too-ready access to guns." President Obama: "This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school or in a house of worship or a movie theater or in a nightclub."
The first problem with the gun issue is that the left ignores the millions upon millions of guns that are out there that are never used for criminal purposes. The second problem is that the policy usually called for by the left results in only law-abiding citizens not having access to guns. Does anyone truly believe that people with evil intentions will be unable to obtain firearms? That any law will deter those who wish to commit evil deeds? For how many years/decades has heroin been illegal? Somehow, people are still able to obtain it. The third problem with the left's analysis is something that Obama, without realizing it, actually hinted at.
Obama mentioned the locations of various mass shootings - a school, a house of worship, a movie theater and a nightclub. Those places do actually have something in common - no one already there had a firearm. Only the perpetrators were armed. After the attack in Orlando I had the opportunity to speak with an LAPD officer. I asked if he thought there was a consensus among officers about whether private citizens should have the right to carry a concealed weapon. (The Federal Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit just ruled that there is no Constitutional right to concealed carry.) On the record, the officer said he had no comment. Off the record he said he thought it would be a good idea to have armed citizens. For those who disagree, I just have one question: if your loved one was killed in that nightclub, wouldn't you be a whole lot happier if one or more customers was armed and able to take out the perpetrator, before your loved one was killed?
The reactions also are all too predictable. One site posted some tweets from the Hollywood crowd. Ariana Grande said: "How how how how can one have so much hate?" Kirstie Alley tweeted: "I can't fathom this kind of hatred and insanity. Paul Feig: "There's enough hate in this world. It's just too much...Enough hate."
I have to admit, I have difficulty understanding such comments about "hate." My first issue with addressing the problem as being one of "hate" is this: is there some ideology called "hate" that has numerous followers throughout the world? What are the main tenets of this "hate" ideology? Who are the leaders of "hate"? Assuming we are correct in referring to what happened as "hate," we need to be clear that this hatred flows from a very specific ideology called radical Islam. (One can question whether this hatred flows from all of Islam, but that topic is not being addressed here.) So, it is simply incorrect to refer to "hate" as any kind of motivating factor in these types of atrocities. But if we must use the term "hate" let's at least use it properly: "hate inspired by radical Islam." There is no separate "hate" ideology.
The second issue I have with the use of the term "hate" is the way it is discussed as if it were some unnatural phenomenon. The left incorrectly assumes that people are inherently good. Conservatives tend to believe that goodness is taught. Anyone who asks how there can be such "hate" in the world is obviously unfamiliar with all of history. Such people have no knowledge of Hitler and the Nazis, Mao and the Red Chinese, Pol Pot and the killing fields of Cambodia, Stalin and Soviet Russia, Rwanda, Sudan and on and on. One hundred million people killed in the Twentieth Century. How can anyone believe that people are basically good? Do not misunderstand; there are many good and fine people in the world. Unfortunately, there are also many bad and evil people.
The other predictable reaction was the overwhelming call for more gun control. Julianne Moore tweeted: "How many people have to be killed before we act as a nation to # End Gun Violence?" The June 13, 2016 LA Times: "While it is essential to understand the motivations of the gunman, that shouldn't distract us from the issue of all-too-ready access to guns." President Obama: "This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school or in a house of worship or a movie theater or in a nightclub."
The first problem with the gun issue is that the left ignores the millions upon millions of guns that are out there that are never used for criminal purposes. The second problem is that the policy usually called for by the left results in only law-abiding citizens not having access to guns. Does anyone truly believe that people with evil intentions will be unable to obtain firearms? That any law will deter those who wish to commit evil deeds? For how many years/decades has heroin been illegal? Somehow, people are still able to obtain it. The third problem with the left's analysis is something that Obama, without realizing it, actually hinted at.
Obama mentioned the locations of various mass shootings - a school, a house of worship, a movie theater and a nightclub. Those places do actually have something in common - no one already there had a firearm. Only the perpetrators were armed. After the attack in Orlando I had the opportunity to speak with an LAPD officer. I asked if he thought there was a consensus among officers about whether private citizens should have the right to carry a concealed weapon. (The Federal Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit just ruled that there is no Constitutional right to concealed carry.) On the record, the officer said he had no comment. Off the record he said he thought it would be a good idea to have armed citizens. For those who disagree, I just have one question: if your loved one was killed in that nightclub, wouldn't you be a whole lot happier if one or more customers was armed and able to take out the perpetrator, before your loved one was killed?
Monday, May 30, 2016
More on the Lack of Ideological Diversity on College Campuses (and the Wider World), Part II
In a new book by Kim Holmes, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State and former V.P. of the Heritage Foundation, he discusses three categories of "tolerance" (really intolerance) displayed by the Left. There is "peer pressure tolerance," where one may have an opinion, but others need not take it seriously. The second level is "self-censorship tolerance," where one may have an opinion, but must keep that opinion to himself. The third level is "mandated tolerance," where you are not even entitled to hold certain opinions, "especially those involving sexual politics, religion, and anything that can be labeled as 'hate speech.'" (From "The Closing of the Liberal Mind," 2016, by the Heritage Foundation, and published by Encounter Books, pages 92-93.)
The latter category is prevalent on many college campuses. After all, that type of speech would constitute "microaggressions," and "hate speech," mandating "safe spaces" for today's emotionally fragile college students. The greater problem is that these college students do ultimately leave academia, and take their closed minds with them into the larger world. We know conservative speakers are not welcome on most college campuses. But look what happens in the greater society. We see newspapers refusing to print opposing views on "global warming" or "gay marriage." At Trump rallies we are seeing violent protesters trying to shut down speech they oppose.
I am not speaking of peaceful protesters. I am speaking of those who will engage in various disrespectful and illegal activities, such as attacking police and police cars and burning American flags, in their efforts to block speech. I am not a fan of hate-speech laws. I am not a fan of laws in some European countries criminalizing certain speech. And I am not a fan of those who try to shut down Trump from speaking. Such tactics only reinforce my intended vote for Trump. Bloomberg and Koch worried that the lack of true dialogue on college campuses would "create graduates who are unwilling to tolerate differing opinions," calling it "a crisis for a free society."
The problem is that the Left dominates in the universities, in the media and in Hollywood. College professors then teach their biased viewpoints to their students. Case in point. Ami Horowitz is a filmmaker who went to Portland State University. He stood in a courtyard telling students he was raising funds for "American Friends for Hamas." (You can Google this sad display of ignorance by college students.) In any event, he is seen telling students things such as: "we want to fund operations against Israel," "attacks we're talking about are cafes and schools, you know - soft targets," and "suicide bombers is all we've got, it's the poor man's F-15."
And finally, he said this: "we're looking to wipe Israel off the map," and "we're looking to destroy Israel. We don't want just Gaza, we want to have all of Israel." Being students, the amounts offered in donation to the cause to destroy Israel were small, ranging from $5.00 to $27.00. Said one student: "I've actually been learning about, in this last school year, about everything that's going on over there, so I like the sound of what you're doing. It sounds like a great thing to do." If this student actually learned the truth, he would know that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. He would know that the Arabs have tried to destroy Israel numerous times, refusing to accept the existence of a Jewish State. And he would know that Hamas is a terrorist organization that also oppresses women and gays and non-Muslims. But the universities are dominated by leftist professors.
Said another student: "I'm totally against the Israeli genocide (of Palestinians)." Genocide? When and where? Would that be Israel's war of self-defense against Hamas in 2014? A war that was precipitated by Hamas' constant pounding of Israel with thousands of rockets? I wonder what this student learned from his professors.
As readers of this blog know, I use every opportunity to remind my Jewish liberal readers that these leftists vote for Democrats. They are part of your party. And many support Bernie Sanders, the Jewish candidate for President, and the candidate who is the least supportive of Israel. Sanders was allowed to appoint 5 people to the Democrats' platform committee. He chose, among others, James Zogby, Cornel West and Keith Ellison, Muslim member of Congress. Zogby is the founder of the Arab American Institute. West expressed his belief that, to this writer, Israel was not allowed to defend itself, by saying: "Let us not be deceived. The Israeli massacre of innocent Palestinians, especially the precious children, is a crime against humanity!"
College students are, for lack of a better word, being brainwashed. They are being fed the left-wing ideology, without the necessary diversity of opinion. These students then graduate, having internalized what they've been taught, as the absolute truth. You cannot debate them, because they won't debate. They will express anger at opposing views and refuse to listen. Hearing an opposing view causes them to be uncomfortable, as they feel their self-identity is under attack. If you think I am only referring to recent college graduates you are mistaken. There are far too many adults who also refuse to read or hear a conservative viewpoint. While they never tire of mocking me, they will not debate me.
You see, the fear expressed by Bloomberg and Koch about the future of our society is here now. We already have the threat to a "free and democratic society." We have already reached the point of "crisis for a free society."
The latter category is prevalent on many college campuses. After all, that type of speech would constitute "microaggressions," and "hate speech," mandating "safe spaces" for today's emotionally fragile college students. The greater problem is that these college students do ultimately leave academia, and take their closed minds with them into the larger world. We know conservative speakers are not welcome on most college campuses. But look what happens in the greater society. We see newspapers refusing to print opposing views on "global warming" or "gay marriage." At Trump rallies we are seeing violent protesters trying to shut down speech they oppose.
I am not speaking of peaceful protesters. I am speaking of those who will engage in various disrespectful and illegal activities, such as attacking police and police cars and burning American flags, in their efforts to block speech. I am not a fan of hate-speech laws. I am not a fan of laws in some European countries criminalizing certain speech. And I am not a fan of those who try to shut down Trump from speaking. Such tactics only reinforce my intended vote for Trump. Bloomberg and Koch worried that the lack of true dialogue on college campuses would "create graduates who are unwilling to tolerate differing opinions," calling it "a crisis for a free society."
The problem is that the Left dominates in the universities, in the media and in Hollywood. College professors then teach their biased viewpoints to their students. Case in point. Ami Horowitz is a filmmaker who went to Portland State University. He stood in a courtyard telling students he was raising funds for "American Friends for Hamas." (You can Google this sad display of ignorance by college students.) In any event, he is seen telling students things such as: "we want to fund operations against Israel," "attacks we're talking about are cafes and schools, you know - soft targets," and "suicide bombers is all we've got, it's the poor man's F-15."
And finally, he said this: "we're looking to wipe Israel off the map," and "we're looking to destroy Israel. We don't want just Gaza, we want to have all of Israel." Being students, the amounts offered in donation to the cause to destroy Israel were small, ranging from $5.00 to $27.00. Said one student: "I've actually been learning about, in this last school year, about everything that's going on over there, so I like the sound of what you're doing. It sounds like a great thing to do." If this student actually learned the truth, he would know that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. He would know that the Arabs have tried to destroy Israel numerous times, refusing to accept the existence of a Jewish State. And he would know that Hamas is a terrorist organization that also oppresses women and gays and non-Muslims. But the universities are dominated by leftist professors.
Said another student: "I'm totally against the Israeli genocide (of Palestinians)." Genocide? When and where? Would that be Israel's war of self-defense against Hamas in 2014? A war that was precipitated by Hamas' constant pounding of Israel with thousands of rockets? I wonder what this student learned from his professors.
As readers of this blog know, I use every opportunity to remind my Jewish liberal readers that these leftists vote for Democrats. They are part of your party. And many support Bernie Sanders, the Jewish candidate for President, and the candidate who is the least supportive of Israel. Sanders was allowed to appoint 5 people to the Democrats' platform committee. He chose, among others, James Zogby, Cornel West and Keith Ellison, Muslim member of Congress. Zogby is the founder of the Arab American Institute. West expressed his belief that, to this writer, Israel was not allowed to defend itself, by saying: "Let us not be deceived. The Israeli massacre of innocent Palestinians, especially the precious children, is a crime against humanity!"
College students are, for lack of a better word, being brainwashed. They are being fed the left-wing ideology, without the necessary diversity of opinion. These students then graduate, having internalized what they've been taught, as the absolute truth. You cannot debate them, because they won't debate. They will express anger at opposing views and refuse to listen. Hearing an opposing view causes them to be uncomfortable, as they feel their self-identity is under attack. If you think I am only referring to recent college graduates you are mistaken. There are far too many adults who also refuse to read or hear a conservative viewpoint. While they never tire of mocking me, they will not debate me.
You see, the fear expressed by Bloomberg and Koch about the future of our society is here now. We already have the threat to a "free and democratic society." We have already reached the point of "crisis for a free society."
More on the Lack of Ideological Diversity on College Campuses, Part I
In my 5/19/16 post I discussed how liberal commentator Nicholas Kristof, who writes for the NY Times, wrote an opinion piece in the paper about the Left's dominance on college campuses. One Columbia Law School professor, Professor William Simon, took issue with Mr.Kristof, and his letter to the Times, along with my email exchange with him, formed the basis of the last two-part post.
Others, however, have agreed with Mr. Kristof, and some of their comments are worth noting. The 5/13/16 Wall Street Journal had an article entitled "Why Free Speech Matters on Campus" by an unlikely pair - the liberal billionaire Michael Bloomberg, former NYC Mayor and founder of Bloomberg LP, and the conservative billionaire Charles Koch, chairman and CEO of Koch Industries.
Said the two: "Across America, college campuses are increasingly sanctioning so-called "safe spaces," "speech codes," "trigger warnings," "microaggressions," and the withdrawal of invitations to controversial speakers. By doing so, colleges are creating a climate of intellectual conformity that discourages open inquiry, debate and true learning." But who qualifies as a controversial speaker?
Apparently, anyone who worked in the foreign policy arena of the Federal government is unacceptable as a speaker. In a 5/10/16 editorial, the LA Times notes that former Secretary of State and Ambassador to the UN, the liberal Madeleine Albright, was an unacceptable speaker at Scripps College. Scripps is a small liberal arts college for women in Claremont, California. It was not just the allegation by students that Albright has "blood on her hands." According to the Times, 28 faculty members sent an open letter promising to boycott commencement ceremonies if Albright was speaking.
Said the boycotting faculty members: "...we should promote the advancement of women and transgender peoples broadly and not simply emulate and celebrate those individuals who participate in U.S. state power and wield its violence." Basically, what we have are leftist professors who have no particular feelings for the greatest country on earth. Do our leaders wield armies that engage in violence? Yes, but most often to combat violence by others. And these professors object to those who wield state power. But I doubt they are anarchists. I suspect many are socialists and Marxists who would have no problem seeing state power exercised according to their ideology.
But good for the LA Times in giving their own advice to the graduates: "Don't be so damn sensitive. Don't be so sure you're right. Don't be so quick to silence those who have a different point of view than your own."
Back to Messrs. Bloomberg and Koch. After noting how college students have been given the power to shut down and prevent speech they oppose and claim as harmful, the two said this: "We believe this new dynamic, which is doing a terrible disservice to students, threatens not only the future of higher education, but also the very fabric of a free and democratic society." That bears repeating. The leftist mentality on college campuses is threatening the "very fabric of a free and democratic society." Blooomberg and Koch are expressing an idea that is completely opposed to Professor Simon's idea that certain views are "legitimately disfavored" in academia.
Bloomberg and Koch continued: "The purpose of a college education isn't to reaffirm students' beliefs, it is to challenge, expand and refine them - and to send students into the world with minds that are open and questioning, not closed and self-righteous." I could not agree more. But the fabric of our society has already been negatively impacted by leftist control of our colleges and universities.
Others, however, have agreed with Mr. Kristof, and some of their comments are worth noting. The 5/13/16 Wall Street Journal had an article entitled "Why Free Speech Matters on Campus" by an unlikely pair - the liberal billionaire Michael Bloomberg, former NYC Mayor and founder of Bloomberg LP, and the conservative billionaire Charles Koch, chairman and CEO of Koch Industries.
Said the two: "Across America, college campuses are increasingly sanctioning so-called "safe spaces," "speech codes," "trigger warnings," "microaggressions," and the withdrawal of invitations to controversial speakers. By doing so, colleges are creating a climate of intellectual conformity that discourages open inquiry, debate and true learning." But who qualifies as a controversial speaker?
Apparently, anyone who worked in the foreign policy arena of the Federal government is unacceptable as a speaker. In a 5/10/16 editorial, the LA Times notes that former Secretary of State and Ambassador to the UN, the liberal Madeleine Albright, was an unacceptable speaker at Scripps College. Scripps is a small liberal arts college for women in Claremont, California. It was not just the allegation by students that Albright has "blood on her hands." According to the Times, 28 faculty members sent an open letter promising to boycott commencement ceremonies if Albright was speaking.
Said the boycotting faculty members: "...we should promote the advancement of women and transgender peoples broadly and not simply emulate and celebrate those individuals who participate in U.S. state power and wield its violence." Basically, what we have are leftist professors who have no particular feelings for the greatest country on earth. Do our leaders wield armies that engage in violence? Yes, but most often to combat violence by others. And these professors object to those who wield state power. But I doubt they are anarchists. I suspect many are socialists and Marxists who would have no problem seeing state power exercised according to their ideology.
But good for the LA Times in giving their own advice to the graduates: "Don't be so damn sensitive. Don't be so sure you're right. Don't be so quick to silence those who have a different point of view than your own."
Back to Messrs. Bloomberg and Koch. After noting how college students have been given the power to shut down and prevent speech they oppose and claim as harmful, the two said this: "We believe this new dynamic, which is doing a terrible disservice to students, threatens not only the future of higher education, but also the very fabric of a free and democratic society." That bears repeating. The leftist mentality on college campuses is threatening the "very fabric of a free and democratic society." Blooomberg and Koch are expressing an idea that is completely opposed to Professor Simon's idea that certain views are "legitimately disfavored" in academia.
Bloomberg and Koch continued: "The purpose of a college education isn't to reaffirm students' beliefs, it is to challenge, expand and refine them - and to send students into the world with minds that are open and questioning, not closed and self-righteous." I could not agree more. But the fabric of our society has already been negatively impacted by leftist control of our colleges and universities.
Thursday, May 19, 2016
An Email Exchange With A Columbia Law School Professor, Part II
Professor Simon: "Thanks for your thoughtful letter. Letters to the Editor are not the best medium for the development of complex ideas. I did not mean to deny that there is a liberal bias in the academy or to assert that the conservative views disfavored in the academy or (sic, are) all racist or dogmatic. I meant (a) the bias is exaggerated, and (b) SOME of what appears to be bias is due to the fact that the views legitimately disfavored in the academy are more common among conservatives than liberals. I'm sure we disagree about much but perhaps not as much as you thought, and I'm sorry the letter wasn't clearer."
The Truth-Uncensored: "Thank you for your reply. But, when you have a minute, I would appreciate it if you could point out those views that are "legitimately disfavored.". What conservative views do you believe are racist, misogynistic or homophobic? Because that is the crux of the debate. I would very much appreciate your comments on those issues. Obviously, I am unable to compel you to reply. However, as your piece in the Times reads, it comes across as many on the left do: disagree with me and you are a (fill in the blank)."
Professor Simon: "We probably don't agree about what counts as racist; so I doubt it would be productive to argue the point. There is a substantial amount of research suggesting that there is some correlation between unambiguously racist views and support for the Republican Party. See, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/11/what-social-science-tells-us-about-racism-in-the-republican-party/. I do not suggest that there are not legitimate reasons to take most conservative positions. My suggestion is that the disfavoring of the positions that are explicitly racist (etc.) would disproportionately affect self-identified conservatives."
The Truth-Uncensored: "Hello Professor. This will be my last email to you as it appears you do not wish to engage further, and I certainly do not wish to be a bother. I have to say that I find it odd that you do not believe we could agree on what constitutes racism. Are you including in your definition opposition to Obama and his policies? Are you including those who say all lives matter?
I have a good rapport with virtually all the attorneys that oppose me. Men, women, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, whatever. I have represented clients from many different ethnic and religious backgrounds. Racism is obnoxious and totally unacceptable. But, if you truly believe that we cannot agree on a definition for racism, then I must conclude that you are defining racism through a leftist lens. In that case, almost anything can be taken as "code words" for racism. "States rights?" Racist. Smaller government? Racist. Balanced budget? Racist. (Yes, I know there was a time when southern Democrats used "states rights" as a way to continue segregation. We are not far apart in age.)
You refer me to an article about racism. First, they quote Harry Reid, one of the most despicable Senate Majority Leaders in our history. Recall during the last Presidential election Reid said from the Senate floor that he knew Mitt Romney had not paid taxes. It was a lie, of course. Further, he could not legally know what any citizen pays in taxes. When asked years later if he wished to withdraw that comment and apologize, he answered to the effect of 'well, he (Romney) didn't win, did he?'
And that reflects one of my main problems with the left. It is an "ends justify the means" mentality. For example, gay marriage is good; therefore it is acceptable to threaten the business and even lives of the family that would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. The Palestinians are oppressed; therefore it is permissible to shout down the Israeli ambassador and prevent him from speaking, as was done at UC Irvine. After all, some views are "legitimately disfavored." But who gets to decide which views? Only the left, apparently.
Do you believe racism is the main problem facing our country? Some on the left have told me that nothing has improved for blacks over the last 50 years. The only way to account for such a conclusion is a saying I have: liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs.
No, Professor, the main internal threat facing our country is leftism. The left is on a never ending path towards tyranny. I gave you some examples in my prior emails. A willingness to dispense with the First Amendment, and the Second. A willingness to have a political litmus test for the right to do business; although I doubt many of those holding such beliefs recognize their apparent affinity for Joe McCarthy. Are you now, or have you ever been: opposed to gay marriage? Opposed to abortion? Opposed to open borders? Opposed to a Palestinian state? And so on.
I trust that you understand that today's Democratic Party is generally devoid of classical liberals. People who welcomed debate, rather than attempting to shut it down beforehand, by declaring certain viewpoints as being legitimately disfavored. People who shared the same fundamental values as conservatives hold today. No. Today's Democrats are leftists and socialists, with little or no appreciation for our system of government, or for traditional American values, or for the US Constitution. With leftists in charge the future for the American ideal of liberty is not bright. I wish you well.
P.S. It won't hurt you to read some of my blog posts. Honestly. http://www.truth-uncensored.blogspot.com"
The Truth-Uncensored: "Thank you for your reply. But, when you have a minute, I would appreciate it if you could point out those views that are "legitimately disfavored.". What conservative views do you believe are racist, misogynistic or homophobic? Because that is the crux of the debate. I would very much appreciate your comments on those issues. Obviously, I am unable to compel you to reply. However, as your piece in the Times reads, it comes across as many on the left do: disagree with me and you are a (fill in the blank)."
Professor Simon: "We probably don't agree about what counts as racist; so I doubt it would be productive to argue the point. There is a substantial amount of research suggesting that there is some correlation between unambiguously racist views and support for the Republican Party. See, e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/11/what-social-science-tells-us-about-racism-in-the-republican-party/. I do not suggest that there are not legitimate reasons to take most conservative positions. My suggestion is that the disfavoring of the positions that are explicitly racist (etc.) would disproportionately affect self-identified conservatives."
The Truth-Uncensored: "Hello Professor. This will be my last email to you as it appears you do not wish to engage further, and I certainly do not wish to be a bother. I have to say that I find it odd that you do not believe we could agree on what constitutes racism. Are you including in your definition opposition to Obama and his policies? Are you including those who say all lives matter?
I have a good rapport with virtually all the attorneys that oppose me. Men, women, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, whatever. I have represented clients from many different ethnic and religious backgrounds. Racism is obnoxious and totally unacceptable. But, if you truly believe that we cannot agree on a definition for racism, then I must conclude that you are defining racism through a leftist lens. In that case, almost anything can be taken as "code words" for racism. "States rights?" Racist. Smaller government? Racist. Balanced budget? Racist. (Yes, I know there was a time when southern Democrats used "states rights" as a way to continue segregation. We are not far apart in age.)
You refer me to an article about racism. First, they quote Harry Reid, one of the most despicable Senate Majority Leaders in our history. Recall during the last Presidential election Reid said from the Senate floor that he knew Mitt Romney had not paid taxes. It was a lie, of course. Further, he could not legally know what any citizen pays in taxes. When asked years later if he wished to withdraw that comment and apologize, he answered to the effect of 'well, he (Romney) didn't win, did he?'
And that reflects one of my main problems with the left. It is an "ends justify the means" mentality. For example, gay marriage is good; therefore it is acceptable to threaten the business and even lives of the family that would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. The Palestinians are oppressed; therefore it is permissible to shout down the Israeli ambassador and prevent him from speaking, as was done at UC Irvine. After all, some views are "legitimately disfavored." But who gets to decide which views? Only the left, apparently.
Do you believe racism is the main problem facing our country? Some on the left have told me that nothing has improved for blacks over the last 50 years. The only way to account for such a conclusion is a saying I have: liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs.
No, Professor, the main internal threat facing our country is leftism. The left is on a never ending path towards tyranny. I gave you some examples in my prior emails. A willingness to dispense with the First Amendment, and the Second. A willingness to have a political litmus test for the right to do business; although I doubt many of those holding such beliefs recognize their apparent affinity for Joe McCarthy. Are you now, or have you ever been: opposed to gay marriage? Opposed to abortion? Opposed to open borders? Opposed to a Palestinian state? And so on.
I trust that you understand that today's Democratic Party is generally devoid of classical liberals. People who welcomed debate, rather than attempting to shut it down beforehand, by declaring certain viewpoints as being legitimately disfavored. People who shared the same fundamental values as conservatives hold today. No. Today's Democrats are leftists and socialists, with little or no appreciation for our system of government, or for traditional American values, or for the US Constitution. With leftists in charge the future for the American ideal of liberty is not bright. I wish you well.
P.S. It won't hurt you to read some of my blog posts. Honestly. http://www.truth-uncensored.blogspot.com"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)