Politically Correct = Reality Challenged part 3
What is the difference between the two kinds of partisan, can either be trusted to babysit your yak? Not much, and heck no are the answers that ring in the ear of anyone with a partisan-free outlook.
Again and again it will be seen that both sides share common mental frameworks and have preconceptions and presumptions that are essentially the same. There are, however, differences in how they see themselves, as rebels to the system of values by which they were raised, (or mis-raised) or as a defender of that same, or a purer, system. In other words the Right works the system and the Left games it but, they both are justifying their black and white, dissent-denouncing tactics by resorting to some ultimate authority whether it is a blatantly human-created set of “values” to be rigidly adhered to or a “sacred and revealed” text direct from God commanding obedience to various tribal codes to avoid divine retribution.
by both self-delusion and pathological self-interest is this mythical authority that can be verified by none but the faithful spread, entrenched and enforced be it laws closing businesses on Sunday or one demanding dogs not be walked on the street in front of a mosque, or laws to prevent public expression of religion and laws that seek to “pick someone’s pocket or break their leg” for the “good of all”, or even a few; all of these are in the partisan’s Box of Pandora.
Both sides seek to use their authority’s ultimate nature as a lever against any and all dissent or opposition. Regulations, whether secular or theological in nature abound and censorship along orthodox lines is promoted as a penultimate virtue, the greatest virtue being faith that any abuse that the partisan becomes aware of is a sadly necessary price on the road to Utopia*/Salvation/Nirvana.
*Utopia is a word as well as a fictional nation embodying the word. The meaning of the word is “No Where.”
The first step in being able to recognize the dysfunctions of partisans on both sides of the spectrum is to know what it means to be non-partisan. IIIB DFI / IIIB FI is the basic DNA of the moderate political viewpoint. (I)f (I)t (A)in’t (B)roke (D)on’t (F)ix (I)t coupled with (I)f (I)t (I)s (B)roke, (F)ix (I)t .The moderate mind has no ax to grind on the back of the rest of society. They respect traditions that are respectful of individuals who do not choose to follow them as well as those who do. They look at problems that consistently vex any part of society and seek solutions that remove both the present problem and the broken social compacts involved from all sides. In criminal law the ultimate rule they follow is one at the heart of our Constitutional system of laws and legislation and was best enshrined in words by Thomas Jefferson when he declared issues that neither picked his pocket nor broke his leg as being outside the authority of the law.
This is not as radical as it might sound. Even in this lawyer-plagued age the majority of American law still comes down to there being a need for economic damage or personal injury of a definable sort for there to be a criminal matter at hand. Granted that there have been far too many decisions that have hinged upon “injury” that was, at best, a pleasant figment of the plaintiff’s imagination this is still the hard core; it is time that we stripped away the dross and remembered it, purified it, made it enduring once again. With more and more moderate viewpoints this self-reinforcing foundation of U. S. legislation will assume the prominence that Jefferson would have wanted to see.
There is no crime more partisan in nature than to declare yourself “harmed” by the expression of an opinion that disagrees with your own. Because of this a reliable self-check on the peer-induced pull of a slide back into a partisan mindset is to force yourself to ask “what’s in this for me?” If you answer “nothing”, then you are either lying to yourself, or you have no reason to think the solution or change you desire would be good for anyone, let alone everyone. If you answer honestly and, after examining your own self-interest in the matter, would still publicly endorse it including the fact of your own lack of “altruism” then you have passed your self-check with flying colors. This is all that is needed. A willful process for denying yourself the luxury of self-deceit. Self-deceit, cognitive dissonance and and group-think are the flying monkeys of partisan thought; they will not only get your little dog they will feed him to their cats for his own good.
Unless one has been brought up in a political vacuum it is hard to avoid spending at least part of your lifetime enmeshed in the folds of one partisan group or another. Many people are so over exposed to a polarized viewpoint that they jump to the other party in a fashion that is often as polarized as their parents’ if not more so. The majority of both these parentaly wound-up rebels and those who retain their parents polarization tend to mellow with time; the non-rebels more likely than not to find peace with the angers of partisan zeal at an earlier age. Then there are those who never really feel passionate about either “choice” of viewpoints, the black or the white. These folks usually blend in with the soft and fuzzy “middle” end of the party’s spectrum from rabidity through hardliners and moderates and are little more to the various political leaders than empty votes to be herded with nightmares and platitudes into one camp or the other during the end game of the election. That is the reality of those who control our society.
What of ideology you say? What of the Left and the Right? What of them comes the answer from the voice of present-day politics. Partisanship has always played a part in human politics. I could go on for pages on the roots and changes, the evolutions, and revolutions in political thought but it all can be summed up very simply; partisan = tribal. Any division of “us” and “them” that is not agreed to by all parties involved is tribalism whether you call it that or nepotism or Left-wing or Right-wing. In other words, even if it makes you feel like someone broke your dolly to hear it, partisan politics is always wrong when applied to a constitutional republic such as the U.S. or to Western democracy in general.
Now let us be clear on this definition. If something is Bad(tm), it means that anyone who insists on doing it, well they are part of the problem instead of part of any defense against or solving of; deal with it.
What good does that do us, the moderate majority asks, much more than you are doing now, says the voice of the Ghost of Reality That Can Be.
The first step is to recognize a partisan when you see them. Next you must apply their own misconceptions against them, making them out to non-partisan eyes as the fools and or tools that they are. Then you must offer a viewpoint that ignores completely the rhetoric and rancor of either side while laying out a ‘triage’ of the particular subject being misused by the partisan for their own benefit. Only then can common-sense and compassion, love and reason all co-exist within one, commonly held “platform”. The chaos of partisan push-and-pull laws and regulations will dwindle over the years and decades to a Constitutionally sound minimum of ‘solutions’ to commonly recognized needs, problems and aspirations.
Well Virginia, last August I applied to be a Google Glass Explorer; and waited and waited and waited; and it slipped into that back corner of my mind where dreams go to fade away. Okay, you got me, I just never thought about it.
Then, late last night, by the light of the new moon… alright, alright; I got an email telling me I was accepted in the new cadre of Google Glass Explorers!
The Glass Explorer Program brings together bold, creative individuals who want to help shape the future of Glass. When you asked us how to get Glass on this site, we told you there would be more chances to join the Explorer Program. Well, here’s your chance. Spots in the Explorer Program are limited, so join us soon.
All Glass Explorers must:
For future reference, your code is: XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX
The Glass Team
For help purchasing please visit theGlass Help Center . f you do not want to receive emails about Glass, please email us at email@example.com. We will remove you from the mailing list within ten (10) days of receiving your notice.
So, what is the problem? The Google Glass team has released a brand-new, updated series of state-of-the-art hardware; new frames, new styles, new capabilities; it all looks awesome for everything from looking up facts while talking to people, information and history around Claremont, the Colleges and all of L. A.! The Google Glass Explorer program is no scam or come-on. This is the perfect moment for me to launch headfirst back into the flow of blogging, drama and politics. I plan to post regular reviews of the Google Glass even as I use and credit it in other ways.
Just gathering media content and trying out new ideas for Google Glass reviews, and reviews of the Google Glass Explorer program will be as much fun as all the rest!
The problem is that I have to buy the unit, understandable for several reasons, not least of which is that putting that kind of commitment into it makes the Google Glass Explorers more likely to A. use the things actively in their work, and B. Take a LOT better care of them than if they were free. It seems that Google did give free hardware upgrades to last year’s Google Glass Explorers so, it bodes well for this year’s class when the latest and greatest comes out next year.
But, virginia, I do not have 1500.00 + tax at this drop-of-the-hat moment to buy the silly thing!
I am looking into private finance sources, sponsors from my college, alumni media groups to be sponsor(s) for the entry of Guy DeWhitney and Heretics Crusade into the Google Glass Explorer program…
More to come; I hope!
Well folks, I am rebuilding my image library and re-linking the proper images to articles and posts… really, I am; trust me, I’m a professional.
Here we go again, some clueless partisan will now explain how the kid stealing gumballs who will get whipped if he is caught by his folks is far worse than the crack dealer who thinks drive-bys are the best way to deal with competitors or witnesses and whose Mom and Pop will never admit is a nasty sucker instead of their misunderstood little boy.
SATURDAY, AUG 3, 2013 07:00 AM PDT
Conservatives claim that all terrorists are Muslim, but most violent attacks in the US are carried out by white men
How racist! Did they count the white men who were Muslim terrorists twice?
From Fox News to the Weekly Standard, neoconservatives have tried to paint terrorism as a largely or exclusively Islamic phenomenon. Their message of Islamophobia has been repeated many times since the George W. Bush era: Islam is inherently violent, Christianity is inherently peaceful, and there is no such thing as a Christian terrorist or a white male terrorist. But the facts don’t bear that out. Far-right white male radicals and extreme Christianists are every bit as capable of acts of terrorism as radical Islamists, and to pretend that such terrorists don’t exist does the public a huge disservice. Dzhokhar Anzorovich Tsarnaev and the late Tamerlan Anzorovich Tsarnaev (the Chechen brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15, 2013) are both considered white and appear to have been motivated in part by radical Islam. And many terrorist attacks in the United States have been carried out by people who were neither Muslims nor dark-skinned.
When white males of the far right carry out violent attacks, neocons and Republicans typically describe them as lone-wolf extremists rather than people who are part of terrorist networks or well-organized terrorist movements. Yet many of the terrorist attacks in the United States have been carried out by people who had long histories of networking with other terrorists. In fact, most of the terrorist activity occurring in the United States in recent years has not come from Muslims, but from a combination of radical Christianists, white supremacists and far-right militia groups.
Given that Ft. Hood shooting by Maj. Hassan was classified as “workplace violence” you might be able to make a case as far as government records go; if you count the times Islamic fundamentalists with normative scripture to quote have been involved in violence as opposed to Bible Verse spouting Christians doing such things the count would be far more one-sided in the other direction. If we expand our focus world-wide there is no question, almost the only people involved with terrorism today are Islamists; the remainder are a radical and unsupported teaspoon in a bucket of Islamic aggression supported by most of the Imams outside the U.S..
Below are 10 of the worst examples of non-Islamic terrorism that have occurred in the United States in the last 30 years.
Well Virginia, at least one sentence in this piece was accurate, too bad the author could not keep to the ‘examples of non-Islamic’ part instead of turning it into a lynch-whitey-and-the-Christians-fest.
1. Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012. The virulent, neocon-fueled Islamophobia that has plagued post-9/11 America has not only posed a threat to Muslims, it has had deadly consequences for people of other faiths, including Sikhs. Sikhs are not Muslims; the traditional Sikh attire, including their turbans, is different from traditional Sunni, Shiite or Sufi attire. But to a racist, a bearded Sikh looks like a Muslim. Only four days after 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh immigrant from India who owned a gas station in Mesa, Arizona, was murdered by Frank Silva Roque, a racist who obviously mistook him for a Muslim.
But Sodhi’s murder was not the last example of anti-Sikh violence in post-9/11 America. On Aug. 5, 2012, white supremacist Wade Michael Page used a semiautomatic weapon to murder six people during an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page’s connection to the white supremacist movement was well-documented: he had been a member of the neo-Nazi rock bands End Empathy and Definite Hate. Attorney General Eric Holder described the attack as “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred.” It was good to see the nation’s top cop acknowledge that terrorist acts can, in fact, involve white males murdering people of color.
Deceitful definitions are the hallmark of this list. Neo-Nazi (National Socialism) is a far Left mind-set, not a far-Right one. The Right thinks of itself as the “owners” of the status quo, the “traditional way things are done”; their problem children use its system to steal power and abuse it. Meanwhile the Left sees itself as the “champion of the underdog” to the point that they excuse virtually any crime or ‘gaming of the system’ that puts one of “their own” over on “the Man.” Sounds like divisive tribalism in PC clothing to me.
The #1 on this list is not about Christians or the far-Right, who tend to be theocrats seeking to own the system and not radicals seeking to destroy it. It is about a far-Left, Neo-Nazi loser who was about as un-Christian as they come as well as being rejected by virtually all of the mainstream Right, Middle and Left. This does not for a moment stop the Leftists from pulling him out as a straw man to use against their opponents in the theft of power from the people.
2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009. Imagine that a physician had been the victim of an attempted assassination by an Islamic jihadist in 1993, and received numerous death threats from al-Qaeda after that, before being murdered by an al-Qaeda member. Neocons, Fox News and the Christian Right would have had a field day. A physician was the victim of a terrorist killing that day, but neither the terrorist nor the people who inflamed the terrorist were Muslims. Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009, was a victim of Christian Right terrorism, not al-Qaeda.
Tiller had a long history of being targeted for violence by Christian Right terrorists. In 1986, his clinic was firebombed. Then, in 1993, Tiller was shot five times by female Christian Right terrorist Shelly Shannon (now serving time in a federal prison) but survived that attack. Given that Tiller had been the victim of an attempted murder and received countless death threats after that, Fox News would have done well to avoid fanning the flames of unrest. Instead, Bill O’Reilly repeatedly referred to him as “Tiller the baby killer.” When Roeder murdered Tiller, O’Reilly condemned the attack but did so in a way that was lukewarm at best.
Keith Olbermann called O’Reilly out and denounced him as a “facilitator for domestic terrorism” and a “blindly irresponsible man.” And Crazy for God author Frank Schaffer, who was formerly a figure on the Christian Right but has since become critical of that movement, asserted that the Christian Right’s extreme anti-abortion rhetoric “helped create the climate that made this murder likely to happen.” Neocon Ann Coulter, meanwhile, viewed Tiller’s murder as a source of comic relief, telling O’Reilly, “I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester.” The Republican/neocon double standard when it comes to terrorism is obvious. At Fox News and AM neocon talk radio, Islamic terrorism is a source of nonstop fear-mongering, while Christian Right terrorism gets a pass.
The Leftist once again gives a pass to the evil of his own sides radicals. while denigrating the Right for the same thing. I think both sides can be guilty of this kind of condoning of crime.
Late-term abortion, the kind Tiller specialized in, is far from cut-and-dried in it’s ethics and morality regardless of your religion, or lack thereof. In a world where 6 month preemies routinely live and prosper the justification for late-term abortion over delivery and adoption start to look pretty damn self-serving. I do not agree in any way with the theocrats on the Right; the only place in the Bible where it even might be talking about abortion is so vague that both sides use it as a proof that their side is the correct one according to scripture. I certainly do not support an individual taking a persons life into their own hands absent a clear and present danger to a person’s life, limb or property. But, we do need to have a conclusive debate on just when a fetus becomes a baby; the present standard seems to be that until a baby breathes air, with permission of the mother, it is a piece of flesh and may be done with as the clinic chooses, i.e. let die and then disposed of or sent to the research labs.
I have always supported a woman’s right to choose, in the first trimester, have been iffy on it in the second and have never supported it except in the case of extreme birth defects or an actual threat to the mother’s life coupled with a likelihood that the baby will be dead or a victim of massive defects in the final three months.
A woman gets to choose, but how many times does society have to allow her to keep choosing? At what point does a woman-with-a-choice become a mother-with-a-responsibility? We would arrest a woman sharing her cigarette and whiskey with her newborn but, we do nothing save frown in disapproval if she does it a day before she delivers; even when the child is ‘wanted‘! This is an indefensible position.
Would I have been willing to shake Tiller’s hand? No.
Do I think he deserved anything but due process of law in his professional life? Again, unequivocally, no.
3. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008. On July 27, 2008, Christian Right sympathizer Jim David Adkisson walked into the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee during a children’s play and began shooting people at random. Two were killed, while seven others were injured but survived. Adkisson said he was motivated by a hatred of liberals, Democrats and gays, and he considered neocon Bernard Goldberg’s book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, his political manifesto. Adkisson (who pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and is now serving life in prison without parole) was vehemently anti-abortion, but apparently committing an act of terrorism during a children’s play was good ol’ Republican family values. While Adkisson’s act of terrorism was reported on Fox News, it didn’t get the round-the-clock coverage an act of Islamic terrorism would have garnered.
Here we have the classic partisan trick of taking some lone-wolf radical and pretending that they represent the mainstream of their opposition; all parties in America are guilty to some extent or another but, this list get nauseating inn how disingenuous it is in it’s attempt to tar the opposition with a brush of distortion and concealed facts.
4. The murder of Dr. John Britton, July 29, 1994. To hear the Christian Right tell it, there is no such thing as Christian terrorism. Tell that to the victims of the Army of God, a loose network of radical Christianists with a long history of terrorist attacks on abortion providers. One Christian Right terrorist with ties to the Army of God was Paul Jennings Hill, who was executed by lethal injection on Sept. 3, 2003 for the murders of abortion doctor John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett. Hill shot both of them in cold blood and expressed no remorse whatsoever; he insisted he was doing’s God’s work and has been exalted as a martyr by the Army of God.
So, what he is saying Virginia is that the “Army of God” is far more radical than even the “Rev.” Phelps’ group of anti-gay “activists”? What exactly does this say about mainstream Christianity in relation to the normative schools of doctrine within Islam? Is there even a correlation?
5. The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996. Paul Jennings Hill is hardly the only Christian terrorist who has been praised by the Army of God; that organization has also praised Eric Rudolph, who is serving life without parole for a long list of terrorist attacks committed in the name of Christianity. Rudolph is best known for carrying out the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics—a blast that killed spectator Alice Hawthorne and wounded 111 others. Hawthorne wasn’t the only person Rudolph murdered: his bombing of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama in 1998 caused the death of Robert Sanderson (a Birmingham police officer and part-time security guard) and caused nurse Emily Lyons to lose an eye.
Rudolph’s other acts of Christian terrorism include bombing the Otherwise Lounge (a lesbian bar in Atlanta) in 1997 and an abortion clinic in an Atlanta suburb in 1997. Rudolph was no lone wolf: he was part of a terrorist movement that encouraged his violence. And the Army of God continues to exalt Rudolph as a brave Christian who is doing God’s work.
The Army of God is hardly an example of the kind of “Christian” that even the typical ‘radical Christian’ can accept as normative. In Islam, Sunni and Shiite, the norm is support of honor killings, gays executed, and apostates murdered, all with the sanction the Qur’an or ahadith.
Just imagine how much worse the Irish ‘Troubles‘ would have been if there had been hordes of Catholic priests and bishops running around IReland preaching support for the IRA’s violence. Of course the new Irish “converts” to radicalism would have found it confusing when they realized they had joined an atheistic, Marxist group (IRA)!
6. The murder of Barnett Slepian byJames Charles Kopp, Oct. 23, 1998. Like Paul Jennings Hill, Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder, James Charles Kopp is a radical Christian terrorist who has been exalted as a hero by the Army of God. On Oct. 23, 1998 Kopp fired a single shot into the Amherst, NY home of Barnett Slepian (a doctor who performed abortions), mortally wounding him. Slepian died an hour later. Kopp later claimed he only meant to wound Slepian, not kill him. But Judge Michael D’Amico of Erin County, NY said that the killing was clearly premeditated and sentenced Kopp to 25 years to life. Kopp is a suspect in other anti-abortion terrorist attacks, including the non-fatal shootings of three doctors in Canada, though it appears unlikely that Kopp will be extradited to Canada to face any charges.
And which mainstream, normalized Christian sect is it that supports this kind of radicalism? Army of God? A group so radical that the groups considered radical by the mainstream think they are over-the-line is now normative Christianity?
7. Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994. Seldom has the term “Christian terrorist” been used in connection with John C. Salvi on AM talk radio or at Fox News, but it’s a term that easily applies to him. In 1994, the radical anti-abortionist and Army of God member attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts, shooting and killing receptionists Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols and wounding several others. Salvi was found dead in his prison cell in 1996, and his death was ruled a suicide. The Army of God has exalted Salvi as a Christian martyr and described Lowney and Nichols not as victims of domestic terrorism, but as infidels who got what they deserved. The Rev. Donald Spitz, a Christianist and Army of God supporter who is so extreme that even the radical anti-abortion group Operation Rescue disassociated itself from him, has praised Salvi as well.
So, the only praise this guy got was from a group that Radical Right groups consider too radical? How is this an indictment against any sect of mainstream Christianity? All of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence endorse honor killing, the execution of gays and apostates as well as other doctrines equally abhorrent to the modern civilised human.
8. Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010. When Joseph Stack flew a plane into the Echelon office complex (where an IRS office was located), Fox News’ coverage of the incident was calm and matter-of-fact. Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa seemed to find the attack amusing and joked that it could have been avoided if the federal government had followed his advice and abolished the IRS. Nonetheless, there were two fatalities: Stack and IRS employee Vernon Hunter. Stack left behind a rambling suicide note outlining his reasons for the attack, which included a disdain for the IRS as well as total disgust with health insurance companies and bank bailouts. Some of the most insightful coverage of the incident came from Noam Chomsky, who said that while Stack had some legitimate grievances—millions of Americans shared his outrage over bank bailouts and the practices of health insurance companies—the way he expressed them was absolutely wrong.
All of which adds up to his being more in tune with Leftists like Chomsky than with conservatives or Christians; another strawman; unless the author’s argument is that only white Lefties commit terrorism.
Of course, Virginia, there are bad people on the Right but, being Right Wingers they will work the system from inside rather than game it from outside.
9. The murder of Alan Berg, June 18, 1984. One of the most absurd claims some Republicans have made about white supremacists is that they are liberals and progressives. That claim is especially ludicrous in light of the terrorist killing of liberal Denver-based talk show host Alan Berg, a critic of white supremacists who was killed with an automatic weapon on June 18, 1984. The killing was linked to members of the Order, a white supremacist group that had marked Berg for death. Order members David Lane (a former Ku Klux Klan member who had also been active in the Aryan Nations) and Bruce Pierce were both convicted in federal court on charges of racketeering, conspiracy and violating Berg’s civil rights and given what amounted to life sentences.
Robert Matthews, who founded the Order, got that name from a fictional group in white supremacist William Luther Pierce’s anti-Semitic 1978 novel, The Turner Diaries—a book Timothy McVeigh was quite fond of. The novel’s fictional account of the destruction of a government building has been described as the inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.
I don’t know about their being “liberal” but, they certainly are NOT aligned with ANY mainstream grouping on either the Left or Right! William Luther Pierce’s own words show that clearly; the closest is the anti-semitism shared with the Left-of-Center Left and radical theocrats from the far Right.
“Liars and hypocrites: those are terms that apply pretty well to every politician in the Western world these days, and the Republicans are no better than the Democrats.”
“…stop listening to the hypocritical cant of the liberals and the mindless ramblings of the conservatives.”
“..But when democracy instead becomes a threat to continued Jewish rule, they are just as fervent anti-democrats.”
“… The government we have in Washington now … cannot and should not be reformed or repaired or salvaged. It should be pulled down and have a stake driven through its heart. Everyone who is a part of it should be dealt with in the same way. …… If you want to make an impression on anyone in Washington today, you must convince him that you are willing and able either to hurt him or to help him.”
Clearly this movement is not aligned with conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats or anyone else interested in evolution of society over revolution by a disgruntled minority.
Especially disturbing is when a partisan just makes things up and puts them in the mouth of their opponent; unjustly and dishonestly hanging them with a rope they had nothing to do with making. The last one ion the list full of it, from start to finish.
10. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995. Neocons and Republicans grow angry and uncomfortable whenever Timothy McVeigh is cited as an example of a non-Islamic terrorist…
What I noticed was more of a confusion about why the LEft insists that an anti-government, self-declared agnostic must be conflated with conservative Christians. That hardly adds up to denying that any self-declared “Christian” is without faults.
…Pointing out that a non-Muslim white male [G DeW: WHY do you have to drag race into this? There are plenty of white Muslims in prison for terrorist crimes.] carried out an attack as vicious and deadly as the Oklahoma City bombing doesn’t fit into their narrative that only Muslims and people of color are capable of carrying out terrorist attacks. Neocons will claim that bringing up McVeigh’s name during a discussion of terrorism is a “red herring” that distracts us from fighting radical Islamists, but that downplays the cruel, destructive nature of the attack. [Emphasis added]…
There is one problem with this; There is no mainstream political organisation, Left, Right or Middle, that says any such thing. They all focus on the fundamentalist and radical mentalities.
It is well known on the Right that the majority of American Muslims have absolutely no faith in the representation of the national Muslim “advocacy” groups like CAIR and MPAC. The problem actually is not the perpetrators of terrorist acts, it is the numerous fundamentalist-minded Imams who are the initial radical element; using their authority as religious leaders to cherry-pick from actual scripture and doctrine only what they need to radicalize individual Muslims whenever they can.
“…Prior to the al-Qaeda attacks of 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing McVeigh orchestrated was the most deadly terrorist attack in U.S. history: 168 people were killed and more than 600 were injured. When McVeigh drove a truck filled with explosives into the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, his goal was to kill as many people as possible. Clearly, McVeigh was not motivated by radical Islam; rather, he was motivated by an extreme hatred for the U.S. government and saw the attack as revenge for the Ruby Ridge incident of 1992 and the Waco Siege in 1993. He had white supremacist leanings as well (when he was in the U.S. Army, McVeigh was reprimanded for wearing a “white power” T-shirt he had bought at a KKK demonstration). McVeigh was executed on June 11, 2001. He should have served life without parole instead, as a living reminder of the type of viciousness the extreme right is capable of.”
Here we run up against the Leftist’s cherished fantasy that the KKK and all of the most violent and virulent racism from American history came from Republicans when the truth is that until the late 50’s and early 60’s when Federal court decisions made their legislative foot dragging on integration moot did the Left STOP being the ideology of the Black-hater, Jew-hater or indeed the “other”-haters they had always been; at least in public, there is no sign that the racism of the Left has done anything but morph into a more subtle and slimy form.
Before the Civil War the people in the North that most opposed abolition were Democrats; in the South the ones who supported it were Republican. During the Civil War (or The War, as Southerners like to refer to it to this day) The people in the North who opposed the war were Democrats. After the war was over the KKK was formed by, once again, Democrats.
In the 50’s it was Democrats who perpetrated the famous acts of violence against peaceful protestors; Gov. Wallace – Dem, Bull Connor – Dem, MLK’s assassin – Democrat… the list is endless. Republicans have their faults to be sure, any partisan grouping is going to have them running out of their ears but, if you hang someone, use a rope that they made, not one you crafted to lynch the innocent.
Has the world of Journalism Majors dropped the idea of telling students that when a criminal is killed in the act by police they do not have to say ‘alleged‘ in regard to their crime as they would if the suspect/perp were alive and in custody?
Worse than that it seems. MSM is bending over backwards not to let the smoke blow away from the enigmatic figure of the Washington Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis.
On CNN they are working up steam for a lynching while searching for a credible “culprit” to hang among the people who hired or passed on Alexis for his clearance; the clearance that permitted him to murder 12 of his fellow Navy workers, unarmed civilians all. The problem with this is that the problem seems to have been the policy handed down from the administration, Obama‘s administration.
Even over on Fox News, the supposedly racist FauxNews station you might find it hard to keep in your mind that Alexis was a murderer of 12 people shot in the act (emphasis added).
…Alexis, who was working in IT for a Navy subcontractor when he died in the rampage at the Naval Sea Systems Command headquarters in Washington…
If my eyes happened to see fall on that sentence at first glance I might think it was a bio/eulogy for one of the victims! How about an objective statement such as “… when he was shot while rampaging through the…“? They have decided that the emotional index of ‘rampage’ is not too strong to be applied to the act yet they fail to step up and describe simply, and accurately what happened.
Usually when this happens the answer to my dear Virginia’s inevitable question* is… “politics, and not the clean kind.” How inconvenient for the MSM to have a black man (why, Virginia, why do they always have to force people to be a color instead of letting them all just be people?), and an apparent “LIberal (tm)” to boot, be the perp just when they were about to canonize Saint Trayvon.
In the 1990’s my friends and I laughed at the PC movement; the vanishing of things like plastic ground in playgrounds seems to show that the pendulum is moving back toward sanity but, it seems that even as it is dying the years and years of politically correct but reality challenged “narrative” has amassed enough of a backlog of stupidity that we will be paying for it long after it is a bad memory.
Plus we have to grow old in a world built by a delusionally self-entitled generation; Yippee, Hooray fails to express my delight at such a prospect, but Oh Fuck would be more cynical than I am wont to be, it can be said that my reaction is a lot closer to the OF end of things than the YH end!
* “What keeps them from telling it straight?”
I have only two things to say to ANY theocratic jerk wishing to rule the world in the name of their hatefilled gods; the second one is… “and the horse you rode in on!”