We Must All Hang Together With Fox News, Or Assuredly We Shall All Hang Separately

That’s Treason Glenn!
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and the Free Press all seem to be under assault in the West. Progressives and Totalitarians are moving to put Free Speech in chains. No country in the West is immune to their attacks.
From Vienna to Venice Beach we see Socialists, Marxists and Islamists moving to eliminate freedom of speech, religion and the press under the cover of “tolerance” and “multiculturalism”. With many Western leaders complacent or complicit it is past time for a light to shine on this agenda.
Even the U.S. President seems to have been seduced by this movement and its slippery logic.
NBC’s Savannah Guthrie interviewed the man to whom Americans look to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.
Ms. Guthrie’s second question for the President made me sit up and take notice. The question was regarding the continuing controversy about FOX News Channel being cut out of the Real Media™ © 2009:
Savannah Guthrie: “…do you think it is appropriate for the White House to say what is or what is not a news organization?”
Obama: ”I think that, understandably since you are in the news business, this is something you are very interested in. I think the American People are a lot more interested in what we are doing to create jobs or how we are handling the situation in Afghanistan.”
S.G.: “Fair enough …but your advisors raised this issue.”
Obama: ”well no, the, uh, I think that what our advisors have simply said is that we are going to take, uh, media as it comes. And if media is basically operating as a “Talk Radio” format then that is one thing, if it is operating as a news outlet that’s another. But it is not something that I am losing sleep over.”
Let us translate the President’s political speech into plain English with the SpinTron 3000 running Kumquat’s iPolitician 2.0 so that we may react to his unfiltered ideas.
iObama: ”I think that, understandably since you are in the [Free Press], [government suppression of dissenting press] is something you are very interested in. I think the American People are a lot more interested in what we are doing [ to pretend] to create jobs or how we are [avoiding] handling the situation in Afghanistan.”
iGuthrie: “[Cool with me boss.] …but your advisors [initiated] this [confrontation and blacklisting].”
iObama: “NO, [o.k. yes, but the reasons WHY make it ok] we are going to take, uh, media as it comes. And if media is basically operating as a [“Free Opposition Press”] format then that [puts them on our black-list], if it is operating as a [“properly deferential” Free Press] that’s [allowable]. But it is not something [my agenda will stumble] over.
No Savannah, not fair or enough. Did no one teach Mr. Obama about Thomas Jefferson? Expedience and politics are no substitute for integrity and the Constitution.
Jefferson: “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
“The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe.”
“I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.”
“The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”
How long will it be before President Obama’s naïve introduction of the Orwellian concept of a media blacklist leads to the silencing of not just networks but individual outlets and citizens who fear to anger “The State”?
Already the White House’s chill on the Free Press has produced frost damage. “Journalists” from the middle to the left of the spectrum are voicing their approval of the president’s declaring war on Conservative media. Dan Rather of HD-Net is on record saying the tactic:
Rather: “… has been very effective. And they [The White House] take the attitude that nobody gets a “no-risk shot” at our president. You take a shot and we’ll shoot back, [which] strikes me as sound strategy…”
Time and time again we are told that Free Speech means nothing if it does not allow unpopular opinions to be heard. I do not think there is much doubt what the likes of Jefferson, Franklin, Paine and Locke would have to say about what is happening in the White House today.
Regardless of the Party in office this is an issue that strikes at the heart of all American freedoms. It is past time for Americans to start standing up for what they believe. For my closing I will again turn to Thomas Jefferson, the most passionate Moderate politician in American history.
“To preserve the freedom of the human mind… and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement.” Thomas Jefferson to William Green Munford, 1799.”

Religious Organization Dedicated to Subversion Invades America

Since 9/11 most Americans have become aware that there are forces in the world that do not share our love of Freedom and Constitutional Democracy. More and more of us have remembered that it is our duty as Americans to remain vigilant against all who would take from us that which makes us unique in the world: The Constitution.

Recently it has come to my attention that there is a group operating in the U.S. that has openly advocated the legislative overthrow of the U.S. Constitution and our way of life.

Furthermore, this un-American organization is openly hostile to modern Western laws regarding women, children and gays. They freely declare their distrust and fear of anyone who does not follow their narrow faith.

In full view of the media they mock the concept of Republican Democracy. Anywhere their allies attain a voting majority they are constantly agitating to impose their own strict religious laws on the local public.

They hypocritically exhort their followers to use the First Amendment to force their views into the schools and workplace. They also teach them how to use the Establishment Clause to keep information about all other religions (including atheism) out.

This group and their allies have gone to court to force schools to allow them to spread their divisive (religious) messages in public schools via a “backpack-mail” system. But when a non-aligned group used the same system they turned around and used the courts to stop the schools from spreading any non-curricular information regardless of its being religious or secular.

This is hardly fair play! It seems that it was more important to this group and its allies to be able to censor other points of view than to spread their own. Since they held a majority in that community they still won out.

As with many subversive organizations their public messages tend toward the bland and reassuring. Only an occasional “WHAT did he say?” reaches the radar of the average American.

But the deeper you go into the bowels of their organization the more blatant is the hatred of all that America stands for. It is no secret that their leadership prays for a day when the only laws in America will be based solely in their scripture.

They not only pray for it. They organize. Likeminded groups have taken up the task of training their more fanatical followers around the country in the craft of taking over local schools and governments in the name of the faith.

They teach followers how to mask their agenda until elected. Once elected the faithful are then apply to their religious agenda regardless of the will of the voters. Their intent is to remake America in their image one town and county at a time.

Their totalitarian ideology does not brook any dissent. The questioning of their religious leader’s interpretations of their holy book is seen as the voice of Satan (Shaytan). More so if the criticism comes from outside their religion. In the U.S. their followers rarely resort to violence but are willing to use almost any tactic short of that to demonize and suppress their critics.

Their Anti-American dream for the U.S. includes:

Women would be coerced by the law to focus their lives on home and children instead of seeking careers.

Women would not be allowed to have a voice in religious or political matters as a matter of law.

Men would be legally empowered to speak for their wives in all matters outside the home.

The decision whether to abort a pregnancy sure to kill the mother (such as a woman with cancer who must choose between an abortion or deferring treatment until after the birth) would rest with the father of the child or father of the mother.

Children and women would have no legal protections outside of the religious institutions. Short of situations manifestly life-threatening no outside agency would have the right to forcibly intervene in any abuse situations within the family. The right of the husband/father to control his family’s “morals” and live out his religion’s requirements would trump any Western concept of “human rights” for his family.

Homosexuality would be outlawed, not just as an active lifestyle. It would be legally a perverted mindset to be policed and punished. Punishments would likely range from imprisonment to castration to the death penalty. Mob justice against homosexuals would mostly be ignored if not condoned.

The freedom of worship of anyone not aligned with their religion’s narrow definition of “godly” would be at risk anywhere they hold influence.

The Bible tells Christians to “judge them by their fruit”. The fruit of this group wherever they hold influence has been divisiveness, intolerance, a smug support of the status quo and the suppression of the greatest ideals of our Founding Fathers: Freedom of Speech/Assembly/The Press and Freedom of Religion.

One of the clearest signs of the hypocrisy of their version of “faith” is that at the same time they are condemning all sex education, adultery and sex before marriage their followers have the highest rates of teen pregnancies and divorces in the nation. Their followers also possess a higher than average rate of domestic violence.

Who are these un-American subversives you ask? What is the nefarious name that these pretend prophets of “holiness” use to organize their subversive minions as they subvert our nation?

“Islamists? You ask. “Scientologists? Mormons? Pagans?” You postulate but miss the rot that lies in front of your nose.

Surprise Virginia, they call themselves the 700 Club.

Do Americans Feel Proud of Winning What They Do Not Deserve?

Sometimes when you least expect it Life gets good. I had such a moment this week when I opened an email from an editor at David Horowitz’s NewsRealBlog.com
Making a short story shorter I will now be a contributor to NewsReal Blog.

Between that and seeing a pair of articles cause quite a stir around D.C. from the Senate and House to The Library of Congress I would have to say that this week hasn’t sucked.

Here is my first article for NewsRealBlog.com

One Third of Americans Proud to Win What They Don’t Deserve
2009 October 21

Are Americans asleep, not paying attention, or simply stoned out of their minds? Has the zero-sum mentality become so prevalent that unearned triumphs are something to take pride in? Does seeing “Our Team” wearing medals, while the real winner of the race stands in the shadows, feel good to more than one third of Americans?

Anderson Cooper 360 yesterday discussed recent polls regarding public approval ratings of President Obama. The polls revealed some rather startling information that, if true, shows a significant portion of the population to be uninterested in fair play:

“Most Americans, 56 percent, don’t approve of the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama, and only a third believe that Obama has done enough to deserve the prize. But seven in 10 are proud that a U.S. president won the prestigious award.”

Now, my math is not in the rocket science class, but those numbers say a lot to me. Only one-third of Americans think Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize but more than two-thirds are proud “our guy” won it. Doesn’t that add up to about one-third of the country being proud to win something undeserved?


Congressional Muslim Staffers Association reacts.

(HH here: On Oct 15th I posted a piece about the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association (CMSA). A quote by a beleaguered Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR prompted me to take a look at the Association and its leaders.

While not incredibly alarming it did seem to me that the political orientation of this group was troubling considering its stated goal is to influence congress’s attitudes and actions regarding Muslims in and out of the country. That the CMSA also claims to “represent” virtually ALL Muslims or former Muslims who are not public about their conversion (apostasy) makes this goal of being the “the premier Federal employee association representing Muslim American interests and concerns, particularly within Congress“.

Premier? To me that means that the CMSA seeks to have a louder and more effective voice than other organizations seeking to speak for Muslims in the Federal Gov. And they even include the caveat: “ESPECIALLY in Congress.”

The CMSA web site is very sparse. “News” is “under Construction” and “Events” is a blank. But there has been at least one change since my research visits. In the days since I posted the bit about the MCSA I have been watching a flurry of hits coming from D.C. They come from everywhere from the Library of Congress to the House of Representatives and lots of private ISPs.

Now one of the things I pointed out in my article was that the site presented only one link for “Information about Islam”. As you can see there are now TWO links. The original one to Al-Islam.org and a new one to IslamiCity.com. My quibble with the al-Islam link was not only that it was a single source but that it was a VERY conservative Shia site with all the traditional, anti-woman and anti-apostate/infidel laws fully represented.

Of all the things that I discussed about the site this is the only change that has been made. The CMSA still claims to represent ALL Muslims that work for Congress no matter who they are or what they believe.

But what about the new link? Does it provide a balance? Short answer? Yes. Long answer? It seems to “represent” the more “Liberal” and moderate Muslim world yes, but it also utterly whitewashes all aspects of Islam that seem odd or evil to Western eyes.

In discussing women’s rights and marriage laws and apostasy the site glosses over all the real-world negative aspects while taking the stance that the real problem is a misperception of what Islam Really Means that seems to be shared by the vast majority of Imams.

The height of silliness is seen when we read the article by Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq on apostasy. Dr. Farooq lays out a very reasonable logic for Apostasy as it is meant today in the West, a solely religious conversion, is not what the historical and traditional Sharia has meant.

He feels that “misinterpretation” is rampant: “Another well-known Muslim scholar and jurist of our time, whom I also generally hold in high regard, is Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi…Dr. Al-Qaradawi also fails to separate apostasy from treason. It is unfortunate that such scholars of high repute have shown such serious lapse[es]…Views and positions of scholars and leaders, such as Maududi and al-Qaradawi, not only provide powerful ammunition for propaganda against Islam and Muslims, but also confound the mind of our own community, including our youth.

Am I the only one that feels Dr. Farooq is a bit confused? He “hold[s] [Qaradawi] in high regard” but Mr. Qaradawi completely disagrees with Dr. Farooq about Apostasy. Not only that but here are a few of the other things that Mr. Qaradawi has said that Dr. Farooq does NOT take him to task for:

From al-Jazeera television via MemriTV:
Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one

Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.”

Never have I seen a single verse, paragraph, or sentence in the Torah which calls for peace. Everything in the Torah constitutes a call for war. They even call God “Lord of Hosts” – they don’t call Him “Lord of the Universe” or “the Compassionate, the Merciful…[The Torah contains] the notion of annihilation. We saw it when the Europeans went to America – they tried to annihilate the Indians. When they went to Australia, they tried to annihilate the aboriginal people. Indeed, they annihilated them. This is a biblical notion – annihilate them totally, do not leave a living soul among them.”

From Wikipedia:
Qaradawi strongly supports Palestinian attacks on Israeli targets. Qaradawi claims that hundreds of other Islamic scholars are of the same opinion. Defending bombings against off duty soldiers Qaradawi told BBC Newsnight that:
“An Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier.”

“I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God’s justice.”

“Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do”.[36]

At the press conference held by the organizations sponsoring Qaradawi’s visit to London, Qaradawi reiterated his view that Suicide attacks are a justified from of resistance to Israeli occupation. In the past, Qaradawi has justified those actions on the basis that all Israel civilians are potential soldiers since Israel is a “militarized society.”

Due to this, Qaradawi has been accused by many Western countries and Israel of supporting terrorism. However, he is opposed to attacks outside of the Palestinian territories and on other than Israeli targets.

I included that last bit so I am not accused of being completely biased. Yes, Qaradawi says that Jihad attacks should be confined to “Palestinian territories and Israeli Targets”.

But let us not forget that to the mainstream Islamic world the entire West is a “Zionist plot” and controlled by Israel. That doesn’t leave a lot of ground protected against Jihad in his eyes.

Though Mr. al-Qaradawi has more than one troubling belief according to Western eyes he is held in “high regard” by the author of IslamiCity article about Apostasy. Though the author clams to be puzzled as to why Mr. Qaradawi defends the opposite interpretation.

The rest of the site seems to be much of the same. A soft-focus, Mr. Rogers’ version of Islam that seems more geared to Taqqiya than honest Dawa. At least the al-Islam site was open about Islam invading and conquering it’s neighbors.

Of course it does claim though (truthfully if that makes it any better to those subjegated) that it was not done to CONVERT the populace (true as far as it goes) but to FREE them from the evils of non-Islamic governments (a sin against God and the people kept from True Faith) so that the people would be “free” to choose to submit to Islam. Sounds a bit Orwellian doesn’t it? But that is orthodox Islam for you.

IslamiCity’s bio of Mohhamed omits virtually all of the incidents of Islamic violence (political murders, assasinations, expulsions.) except the ones that were actual self defense. Its treatment of women and marriage is disingenuous at best. Take a trip on the Taqqiya railroad and follow their “Understanding Islam and the Muslims” tour.

In IslamiCity’s favor the article on the Shia and Sunni is very fair and balanced and gives no high ground to either faction.

In summary it is nice to see that the MCSA is not incapable of change. Well at least a little bit. Instead of one fundamentalist Shia info site they now link to that one and a site that is the Muslim equivalent of an upper-middle class Presbyterian church in Pasadena; completely in the middle and with all the passion removed and scripture whitewashed of anything objectionable for the sake of tender ears.

Now let us see them change their claim to represent all Congressional Muslims. Or how about publishing those events that a Congressional “Muslim” must attend to have voting rights?

I would also love it if the MCSA eschewed politics and focused on being a social/religious networking/support group rather than a partisan political action group claiming to represent people to Congress who have given them no such mandate.

I would like to see them explicitly denounce the idea of organizing the employees of Congressmen in order to influence said elected officials in their public duties. It may pass the Constitution but no matter what group does it is a circumvention of the very idea of an objective elected official.

Radical Christian organizations have tried this game, though they usually go for the Senators and Representatives themselves. It has also been tried in the Military.

ANYWHERE it happens it needs to be put under a bright light so that all can see just what agenda drives the groups efforts. This is never more true than when the group doing the organizing is under the influence of foreign groups hostile to the values of the U.S.!!!

If any members of the MCSA want to write and give me their point of view I would be happy to add it to the info I have and to further articles regarding your group.

If there are any Muslims working for Congress that do NOT agree with the stands of the MCSA feel free to let me give you a voice. Please provide documentation, rumor is not what I want, I can get that from any Right Wing or Leftist demagogue.)

“Queering Our Schools” and excercises in denouncing gays for the wrong reasons

(HH here: well here we go again, not satisfied with legitimate concerns like over the top sexual details in early education and the kudos for the NAMBLA spokesman we will now observe a Right Wing partisan in all his glory attempt to oust someone who needs to go while reinforcing weak personal prejudices. No doubt in order to garner votes for Psuedo-Conservatives by “worrying about the children”.)

Fifty-three Republican congressmen yesterday demanded that President Obama fire his embattled “safe schools czar,” Kevin Jennings. Mr. Jennings’ bizarre sexual agenda for American grade schools is one reason the president should dump this dangerous radical.

(HH: Quite probably, but not for all the reasons that you want. Children are to be taught, not kept in bubble wrap until we thrust them out into a VERY confusing world.)

…book he endorsed was a collection of essays by different authors who supported teaching young children about homosexuality. Mr. Jennings’ foreword explains why he thinks it is important to start educating children about homosexuality as early as activist-educators can get away with doing so. “Ask any elementary-school teachers you know and – if they’re honest – they’ll tell you they start hearing [anti-homosexual prejudice] as soon as kindergarten.” And “As one third-grader put it plainly when asked by her teacher what ‘gay’ meant: ‘I don’t know. It’s just a bad thing.’ ”

(HH: Which is a good reason to keep them in the dark about the entire subject? We should just let them wonder and fantasize and be naive prey for the first plausible line from a sexual predator? Is that what you want so you can pretend that your Victorian concept of children being “harmed” by knowing about sex “too young”? You don’t see a need to tell these kids SOMETHING? When a child that sees a fundamentalist “Christian” who peddles hate instead of the Love of God say that Gays want to come and steal him from mommy and daddy and hurt him…what do you tell him when he finds out that Timmy’s father is Gay while at the school fair?

I am sorry I can’t give you a time machine to go back to when gays pretended they liked the opposite sex and straight folk mostly didn’t know gays were real. )

As another author in the book notes: “Any grade is ‘old’ enough [for the proper education] because even five-year-olds are calling each other ‘gay’ and ‘faggot.’ ” Other writers claim there apparently is no problem getting into these discussions because, “The belief that children are not sexual beings is not substantiated by research.”

(HH: You would just ignore it? Are you under the impression that children are psychological and physiological eunuchs until puberty? Or that they have no sex based perceptions?

We still are waiting for you to explain why it is BAD for children to know the basic facts about the people they are going to become. Explain how you are NOT just harking back to when the CONCEPT of sex was seen as “dirty” and so it is “good” to keep children “pristine” of this disgusting influence as long as possible lest it destroy their “godly character”. Whew, that left a bad taste in my mouth just saying it.)

The authors of “Queering Elementary Education” don’t seem to be bothered by the dearth of evidence to justify their position in favor of teaching children about homosexual relationships. Because they do not provide the names of teachers who told various anecdotes included in the book, there’s no way to check how many of the stories are secondhand exaggerations or even pure fiction.

(HH: spoken like a true disconnected adult. How long has it been since you paid any attention to what the children around you were saying? If you have kids or grandkids of your own how can you NOT know what they babble on about that they pick up from the adult world?

Or is it just that in your little world homosexuality is so hushed, so obviously shameful to even contemplate that the kids don’t share their thoughts and mistaken impressions with you?

The book probably does not make it a formal study because it is obvious. Are you unaware that Junior High and High school age kids use the term “that is so gay” as a put down?

The hilarious part to a moderate like me though is that to these kids, steeped in acceptance of gays, it is NOT a reference to anything homosexual!

That is Humanity for you, the kids have accepted with little resistance the equality of gays as “just people”. But at the same time from the pervasive negative propaganda they hear from, oh people like you, the word itself has become an insult. Does that make you proud or does it frustrate you that they got your hatred of “gay” but still understand that BEING gay is no big deal? In and of itself that is. )

One author in the book attacks the conservative notion that “artificial insemination, transient relationships, same-sex marriages and tangled family structures are not issues children should have to know about.” Others contributors advocate that “sexual-diversity issues are central to multicultural education” and that schoolchildren should sing songs such as “In some families we have two Moms.” Mind you, the authors don’t provide scientific evidence that their policies accomplish the strange goals they push.

(HH: Oh, wow. I just looked at the original article again. It doesn’t list an author; the Washington Times itself takes credit.

I am just floored at the notion that someone so partisan, so out of touch with the changes in the last, oh 70 years at least, has editorial control of a whole newspaper.

let us deconstruct this a bit at a time to avoid choking hazard:
The premise presented is that the book dares to attack a “Conservative” notion. I like that, notion. Not even a belief, just a notion and it is treason to children to defy it I guess.

Let us look at the purported “conservative” thought that is under attack: Children should “NOT HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT” such things as “artificial insemination, transient relationships, same-sex marriages and tangled family structures”. Okaaay! So, since it really IS 2009 and not 1899 what do you advise the parent or teacher or parent of a friend tell a kid who knows nothing he “does not have to know” when:

A) Timmy sees that the new baby next door looks nothing like the rest of the family. Timmy runs home and asks you why this is so when the baby’s mom says she did not adopt him. Given that you feel artificial insemination is something he “does not need to know” aren’t you going to have a lot to explain that could have been taken care of by biology class?

B) Timmy’s best friend Billy is sad because the woman that had been his “mommy” for the last year left and never calls him. Timmy runs home and thinking that all mommy’s and daddy’s are married asks you why Billy’s “mommy” left Billy.

C) I guess you prefer Timmy to cause you and others great embarrassment when he encounters the inevitable same sex couples and gets all freaky because you felt he “didn’t have to know”.

We all wish life was less complicated, never more than when trying to explain part of the adult world to kids. But try to explain to kids intentionally kept in a fantasy world of [Happy Mommy’s and Daddy’s Raising their 2.5 kids with “mom’s eyes but their dads coloring”] for 10 to 16 years how things REALLY work. Or don’t work as the case may be, human relations being what they are. Why do otherwise intelligent adults think that kids should be “protected” from ALL experience that might be useful once they reach marrying/career age?)

“Queering Elementary Education” argues consistently that children should be taught that same-sex-parent families are as normal and common as the traditional two-parent family or single-parent families. But it is one thing to argue certain behavior is acceptable; it is quite another to distort basic facts in an effort to change the worldview of children.

(HH: well it is nice to be able to agree on ONE thing at least in this article. Same sex relationships are as “normal” as the people make those relationships, no matter the plumbing involved. If heterosexuality were the prerequisite of “normal” parents then why are most of the people involved with DCFS hetero? Per capita not by numbers. The most common child molester is a straight male not a gay male or female. Radical “lifestyle” gays are no more representative of homosexuals than Rev. Phelps is of Christians.

But I do agree that the Leftist tendency to view the world via “Pravda” colored glasses is present. The whole “gender Studies” garbage about how we are all bisexual and only convention makes us otherwise is bad science and worse politics. Too bad the article did not start and end with this point.)

Mr. Jennings is one who claims that homosexual couples are more common than they actually are. One of his books titled “One Teacher in Ten” claims that 10 percent of people are homosexuals. Almost no one defends the old Alfred Kinsey survey that Mr. Jennings relied on to make this claim. That 1948 survey interviewed a high percentage of prison inmates and known sex offenders. There’s plenty of more objective studies out there. For example, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago found that the number of homosexuals in America was less than 1 percent.

(HH: Really? The fact that one study from the 50’s is not wholly accepted as valid means all others since are also wrong? That is a complete strawman argument if I have ever heard one. About the statistics, did you read this study yourself or did someone tell you about it? I hope the latter because otherwise you are seem to be lying! Here is the relevant quote from the study you refer to“:

“The gay and lesbian communities have long adopted 10% as the portion of the population that is homosexual.5 However, a series of recent national studies (Table 8A) indicate that only about 2-3% of sexually-active men and 1-2% of sexually- active women are currently engaging in same-gender sex”

First off 2-3 male and 1-2 female is NOT 1% in any statistics class I have heard of. And the kicker; “CURRENTLY ENGAGING”.

This figure is not even meant to represent all homosexuals. Personally I think that the inherent inability to get fully accurate data makes this answer likely to be on the LOW side. If 2-3% and 1-2% are willing in the hostile environment to be sexually active don’t you think that many places, oh like rural Alabama, are crawling with gays that do the best they can NOT to get caught? Many to my personal knowledge know they are gay but still accept the judgment that there is something “unnatural” about it that can be overcome if they “really want to”. Since they can’t change what they feel, only pretend, the often go radical and over-the-top or stay in the closet and hate themselves.

Oh, and let us not forget the bisexual people who may yearn for the same sex in certain ways but, from being smart enough to stay under the radar, choose to suppress the gay side in exchange for a simpler life.

Do you begin to see just how provincial your declarations are in the light of reality?)

Advocating the indoctrination of kindergarten children based on anecdotal evidence or flawed science isn’t Mr. Jennings’ worst offense. But it’s certainly not what Americans expect from a White House “safe schools czar” who is responsible for making policy decisions that impact children’s safety.

(HH: no, they are not, so why are you cynically using outrage at his real offenses to try to sell your own brand of fascism? Is it not the responsibility of those that choose to be firm against “evil” to be honest themselves about their opponents?

Read the original article or see this commentary and others at http://hereticscrusade.com)

Is this the “logic” taught in college today?

(HH Here: Sometimes I ponder on just what goes on in the minds of people who are able, seemingly with no effort at all, apply ethical rules to others that they never apply to themselves. What does it feel like to live behind eyes that see no problem with denying others the rights they feel are essential to their very existence? Let us venture behind the corneas of Monira Gamal-Eldin, President of the Temple University Muslim Students Association and see what we find there.

Geert Wilders is a controversial Conservative Dutch politician who speaks about the threat from Muslim immigrants who refuse to assimilate and are changing the egalitarian countries of Europe to resemble more the tribal societies they “fled” from. Wilders is anti-racist and pro-Jewish but suspicious of conservative Muslims and their political agenda in the West.

The Muslim Students Association is well known for sponsoring blatantly hateful anti-Semitic speakers and events that actually promote violence and genocide. What we have here in the email below is a case of the pot calling itself clear glass and the glassware black:)

“From: Monira Gamal-Eldin
Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Subject: Statement from the Muslim Students Association on Geert Wilder’s visit
To: barry.scatton@temple.edu, b.walsh@temple.edu, cherij@temple.edu, tua36511@temple.edu, info@horowitzfreedomcenter.org, press@temple-news.com
October 14, 2009

The Temple University Muslim Students Association (MSA), one of the largest, most active and socially conscious student organizations on Temple’s campus, is issuing this public statement of protest concerning the invitation of Geert Wilders to address the Temple community on October 20, 2009. “

(HH: Right off the top we see the egotism of this gentle lady. The other student organizations are, in her words, smaller, lazier and not as “good” as the MSA and so it behooves the above addressed to listen up to what this noble organization has to say. Does this young lady really think the other groups all consider themselves to be NON-socially conscious? Or does she just feel that to be socially conscious and not agree with her is an oxymoron? Point of advice my dear, if you don’t want people to think you are putting them down say something like “ …(MSA) an organization with substantial membership that strives to be active and socially conscious.” See? You get the same info across without making yourself sound like you think you sweat perfume.)

“Geert Wilders is a far-right Dutch MP who is infamous for his anti-Islamic rhetoric and extreme hatred towards Muslims. A person who has been tried in the Netherlands Supreme Court for his hate speech concerning Islam,…”

(HH:That is a lie, there has been no trial as of yet and the prosecutors had to be ordered to take on the case. It is not expected to end in conviction. Stay tuned, but to say he has been TRIED is false)

“banned from the United Kingdom due to the threat he poses to community harmony,”

(HH: Another falsehood, the ban was because of threatened violence by OPPONENTS of Wilders and it has since been overturned and declared baseless.)

“…and is concurrently being charged for violating anti-hate laws in the European Union, should not be allowed to address the Temple community.

Temple MSA speaks for the many Muslims and socially conscious students and faculty on campus when we say…”

(Hold the phone!!! MSA claims to SPEAK FOR ALL MUSLIMS on the campus? Have you polled ALL the Muslims and received their endorsement as their spokesperson? Do you have their PERMISSION to speak ex cathedra from your navel on their behalf? Do you also have some sort of special political x-ray glasses that enable you to see that any students and faculty who are not Muslim and do NOT agree with you cannot be “socially conscious”?)

“…that the presence of Geert Wilders on our campus is a breech of Temple University’s pledge to ensure the wellbeing and safety of all students and faculty on campus.”

(In just what way is the “wellbeing and safety of ANYONE being threatened by Mr. Wilders presence?)

“The Muslim population at Temple feels attacked, threatened, and ultimately unsafe that Mr. Wilders has been invited to voice his hate-driven opinions.”

(this is just amazing considering the hateful venom spewed across campuses all over America by MSA’s invited guests! Or are you renouncing your welcome to supporters of Hamas and Hezbollah and those who justify suicide bombing and especially those who condone the killing of Jews. Do you intend to take this stand with the next CAIR endorsed apologist for Sharia wants to come speak on how Israel must be eliminated for peace to reign? No? I didn’t think so but I had to give you the benefit of the doubt. )

“The fact alone that backpacks are prohibited for entry to this event reinforces our argument that this creates an unsafe atmosphere where prejudiced, racist and vehemently hateful words will be disguised under the veil of academia…”

(Excuse me while I wipe up some water and blow my nose. I haven’t laughed that hard in years. Are you REALLy saying: ‘The MSA intends to foment protest that might well become violent (HH: as they have at other MSA events at Temple and other campuses) and feels it is the fault of the administration for allowing a speaker that makes us so mad we cannot control ourselves as sane adults. We feel that to ban backpacks that might contain weapons with which our zombies MIGHT attack Mr. Wilders [as we have threatened] just shows how provocative he is! If there is violence it will be HIS FAULT that WE commit it! Can’t you see that you must ban him to SAVE US from his all –powerful ability to make us feel so scared and threatened that we must riot.”}

(HH: The sound you now hear is Thomas Jefferson gagging.)

…”Temple MSA deplores the decision made by Temple College Republicans, The David Horowitz Freedom Center, Temple University Purpose, Temple Student Activities, and Temple University as an institution of higher learning, for welcoming Geert Wilders when so many have found his speech to be repugnant to society as a whole.”

(HH: And just when did having controversial speakers at a college become forbidden or even unusual? It surely wasn’t when YOUR last speaker came by now was it? But again, maybe I am being unfair. I guess that if a Jewish student group felt that one of YOUR speaker’s message was, how did you put it again? Here it is: “repugnant to society as a whole.” then you would cancel said speaker, right? Would you? Again you say no. Well, you can’t say I am not giving you all the rope you need. )

“We condemn Temple University for being the first university in the United States to allow Mr. Wilders to address their population and hope that the administration realizes the reputation and ideologies they are fostering not only to the Temple community, but to the world…”

(HH: Are you SURE you want to go there? After all if the admin start thinking about the reputation and ideologies YOUR group fosters you might find not only your speakers but your entire organization banned instead of Mr. Wilders.)

“The decision to allow Mr. Wilders to share his viewpoints is a danger not only for the public safety of Muslims and the honor of the core principles of Islam, but also for academic integrity and objectivity on campus…”

(HH: A man speaks and the “public safety” of MUSLIMS is in danger? I guess you are worried about one getting hurt in the riot they hope to start when Wilders speaks. So stop inciting them to violate the law and there is no problem, right? And as to the “honor of the core principals of Islam” WHO THE HECK CARES? This is not Saudi Arabia my dear, the so called honor of the core principals of ANY religion has no protection under the law. Here let me prove it to you. Jesus SAVES, he dribbles down court, he shoots, he scores! Why did it take God 40 years to lead the Jews through the desert? Ans: Do you know how long it takes to get 300,000 women through two porta-potties? Famous Koranic Mistakes: Mixing up the words for ALCOHOL and CAMEL URINE. See? No lightening from the sky, no sirens of the thought police approaching. Get with the program; no university worth the name will suppress free speech simply because you are thin-skinned about the weaknesses of your personal faith.

And if that wasn’t enough, in a final burst of silliness you claim that if the college does not discriminate in ways you define it cannot be objective. Orwell could have written TWO books about your political “morality”.)

“We strongly urge that his invitation be rescinded immediately in order to foster appreciation of free speech that is not based on hatred and discrimination.

(HH: Free speech is not based on anything but the idea that ALL speech that does not directly incite violence is protected; ESPECIALLY when the majority find it objectionable.

The West has never confused religion and politics quite as thoroughly as Islam has but what it did do in that direction began to be rooted out of our culture about 300 years ago by The Enlightenment and was killed dead two hundred years ago by the First Amendment. We protect the speech of not just “socially conscious” citizens but Neo-Nazis, Klu-Klux Klan members and even the most hateful of all, the ones that shamelessly promote the total enslavement of the human world; ISLAMISTS. Yes, even your bloodthirsty heroes can say their say in America. Ain’t it grand?

I hope you enjoy Wilders’ speech. Try not to get arrested too early and miss it!)

“Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter.
Monira Gamal-Eldin
President of the Temple Muslim Students Association”

(HH: Parting Shot: You might try enrolling in Logic 101 as well as any Western Civ. course not taught by a Marxist. In any case good luck with your career with CAIR.

Head Heretic from Heretics Crusade)

Partisans, Partisans Fly Away Home; Your Politics Are Toxic And Your Children Are Alone.

(HH here: As the feeding frenzies around President Obama’s policies and appointments thicken I wish to note that the partisans on the RIGHT are feeling freer and freer to show their own true colors. From corporate apologies to thinly veiled Christian Supremacism we see the Right Wing minds daring to poke their heads above the Conservative majority on the Right.

Just as the Leftists feel compelled to oppose anything that is traditional or uniquely Western so the Right Wing follower of “revealed Truth” seems hard-wired to reflexively oppose ANYTHING proposed by a non-fundamentalist that does not reinforce the fundamentalist’s worldview.

Over the course of history just how many wonderful ideas were torn apart by the wild dogs of partisan “debate”? The saddest thought to me is that if the “ideal society” envisioned by both extremes ever had a chance it was from moderate ideals that the partisans rejected for lack of “purity”.

Back in March I posted a piece about my attitudes toward the extremes of the political spectrum, principally Islamists and Fundamentalist Christians. In that piece I talked about the difference between neo-Platonic thought and Neo-Aristotelian thought.

In a nutshell the Platonic model believes in revealed Truth as the only valid Truth. Human reason is a trap and a dead end and the only hope Humans have is to follow absolutely the rules of the MOST nearly enlightened leaders. These leaders can be secular (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) or they can be Religious (Bin Laden, Khomeini, Jim Jones, The Pope before the Reformation) but they all share the quality of being closer to the unknowable “Truth” than the hopeless and helpless masses. To NOT follow this master/teacher/leader is to commit blasphemy and accept the cloak of evil.

We see this model used over and over again by those who seek power but have no ideals that serve mankind. Rather they seek to sell their followers on the idea that they are lost sheep and following “The Leader” whether Christ or Allah, is the ONLY possible way to be “good”. Moral choice is declared too weighty for the average mortal and is reserved for the “priesthood” in charge of the orthodoxy.

We see this today most clearly in sharia “law” and in the actions of certain radical and heretical Christian sects. They look not to their Human conscience in making “moral” choices but to a book or fanatical leader whose pronouncements are to be simply noted and applied, not debated or questioned. Thus if the Islamic authorities declare that there is no sin in a man performing sexual acts upon his infant “wife”(as long as she is not PHYSICALY harmed) a “good” Muslim is simply expected to nod their head and go home and feel o.k. about uncle Salim masturbating on a 16 month old. MORALITY IS NOT IN OUR PROVENENCE in this mindset. Morality to the neo-platonic is obeying the rules end of story, now put your hand down and stop asking questions or we will cut it off.

Just so in some radical Mormon families or certain radical Christian families when the “patriarch” says that this 12 year old girl is to marry his 65 year old buddy as a 4th wife no one is supposed to THINK of questioning its “Rightness”. God says he has the right, he has used that right and the girl is blessed to be so taken care of; AMEN. In their minds.

Caught between the tribal squabblings of these fanatical (ultimately superstitious) fools on the Right and Left are the neo-Aristotelians. Those that believe that mankind can learn and grow. Those that feel that the universe is essentially sensible and follows consistent rules however subtle and complicated those rules may be. You know, the ones that USE their brains AND hearts.

With the Human race learning enough about the universe and how it works to place a whole series of people on the Moon and return them I would say that the jury SHOULD be in on who is right, us or the Platonians. Science as we have known it would be impossible if Plato were correct. Even the discoveries of something as old as the science of optics would be impossible if Plato were not completely off track in his analysis of mind and reality.

But this has not stopped the fanatical and self-hating Neo-Platonics from keeping the rest of us from finding greater harmony in our cultures and relations. On the Left and on the Right the tribal Us vs. Them mindset that sees all life as a zero-sum game keeps feeding off of every society that welcomes them.

Today let us examine the “fairness doctrine” and “localism”. On the left we have Mark Lloyd, Obama’s “Diversity Chief” and on the Right we have Mr. Lloyd’s bio on discoverthenetworks.org. In the middle of a lot of partisan blather are a few good ideas that look to get raped in passing while the two sides “react” instead of thinking.

Frontpagemag.com the umbrella site for discoverthenetworks.org and others trends from moderate Conservative to unabashedly Rightwing depending on the subject and on the author. This particular page, the bio for Mark Lloyd strays far over into the land of corporate apologia and far from the realm of objectivity.

Of course that does not change the fact that Mr. Lloyd is about as unreconstructed a Marxist as there is in the administration today. He knows the “Truth” of the Leftist religion and is ready and willing to use a broken slide rule to calculate which “means” are justified by each particular holy “end”. In addressing the idea that ownership of media outlets needs to be in more female and minority hands he embraces gleefully the idea of “removing” the “wrong kind” of owners and placing their outlets in the “right hands” for “proper” social growth.

On the one hand Lloyd was correct in a June 2007 report Lloyd co-authored titled “The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio,” when he said: “91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive,” and these stations and networks are failing to follow Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, requiering “commercial broadcasters to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.”

Also, while Lloyd feels the argument does not go far enough in FORCING the market to represent his Leftist “truth” in great enough proportion he does recognize that a big part of the cause was: “repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by the [FCC] in 1987. The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation … that required broadcasters to devote airtime to important and controversial issues and to provide contrasting views on these issues in some form. From this perspective, the repeal of the doctrine in the late 1980’s allowed station owners to broadcast more opinionated, ideological, and one-sided radio hosts without having to balance them with competing views.”

This is such a no-brainer that it boggles the mind that anyone would be arguing it. I remember what radio was like then. All sorts of things were discussed but the STATION was always neutral and it was the GUESTS that battled it out in the ideological duels. The idea of an ideologue of EITHER stripe having sole control for a time and being allowed to not only propagandize but select for themselves who they will let ask them questions and what they will answer.

The Rest of Lloyds Marxist ideals are toxic but the basic idea of a return to the times when stations regularly reminded their audiences that the airwaves belonged to THEM and not the station. I felt comforted to know that if a station went off the beam far enough the locals could bring it back in line.

Why do so many so called Conservatives fail to see when things are going their way that there might come a time when THEY will be the minority in need of a level playing field? As near as I can tell the only solid reason the Conservatives have to reject the Fairness Doctrine in its historical form is that they have more voices on the radio and non-partisan debate is the LAST thing they want. In this they have abandoned the honor of Conservatism for the reactionary opportunism of Right Wing totalitarianism.

By all means Mr. Lloyds draconian redistribution of outlets and the income of privately owned outlets should be opposed by all legal means. But to be fair, what is wrong with the fairness doctrine? It just holds the outlet to be neutral and to let real people instead of paid performers debate the issues. As I said, I remember it quite well and fail to see a problem with returning to it, other than demagogues losing the ability to get rich propagandizing people with hateful rhetoric. Regardless of the truth of any individual story that someone like Rush airs that story will be spun hard in one direction and no opposing voice will be heard.

The other issue that the “Conservative” that wrote Mr. Lloyd’s bio had that just seems silly is that of “localism” the idea that radio, TV and Newspaper outlets should be mostly locally owned instead of being arms of corporate interests.

Given the troubles that media has caused in the past due to too few voices in control I again fail to see why this is not a GOOD idea.

If Randolph Hearst had not been allowed to own so many papers would the West coast Japanese have been interred in WWII? Other examples abound. Frankly I can’t see the problem with the old school approach; one group or individual may own or control ONE outlet of each type, radio, Newspaper, TV. On the national level with cable and sat radio One theme per station should be the rule; news, music, talk, general entertainment.

If each owner, individual or group, is allowed an equal presence in every venue how is it NOT fair? To do as Mr. Lloyd wishes and control WHO is allowed to own at all is simply draconian but to try to defend corporations or individuals (like Hearst) owning and controlling huge swaths of media is just reckless. that simply defends a present status quo at the risk of the freedom of speech of generations unborn!

Reality Check: If someone who claims to not be Right Wing or Leftist defends injustice when it benefits THEIR group but sees it as evil if “committed” by the opposition then you are talking to a partisan. Do not feed them or pet them, simply walk away and continue to use your god-given will to resist the temptation to force others follow your “truth” whether they like it or not.

Go Forth and Be Moderate. Be Not Afraid to Think.)

From the Moderate Muslim File: Kuwaiti women MPs refuse to wear hijab in parliament

Two female Kuwaiti MPs, Rola Dashti and Aseel Al-Awadhi, are defying the country’s powerful Islamist movement by refusing to wear the hijab, or headscarf, in parliament.
By Richard Spencer in Dubai

Published: 2:57PM BST 12 Oct 2009

(HH: You just know That is going to go over well. I wish them luck.)

The MPs, …, have angered their Islamist colleagues, who say they say they are flouting sharia, or Islamic law.

(HH: Somehow I think that these women are already aware of that fact. In fact that is the whole point of what they are doing as we shall see.)

One …is going further by demanding the scrapping of …regulations that says they have to observe sharia in parliament.

“You can’t force a woman going to the mall to wear a hijab and you can’t force a woman going to work to wear the hijab,” [said] MP, Rola Dashti…

Last week, the rector of al-Azhar University in Cairo, traditionally the principal seat of Sunni Islamic learning, banned women students from wearing the face veil in women-only classes and student dormitories, and was followed by other academic institutions there.

Students at Khalifa University in Sharjah, the most conservative of the seven city-states that make up the United Arab Emirates, have also reportedly been told to stop wearing the veil, known in Arabic as the niqab.

When electoral law was changed in 2005 to allow women in Kuwait to vote and stand for parliament, Islamists inserted a law-minute rider that “women as voters and MPs” would have to follow sharia. It did not specify precisely where or how.

Three Islamist MPs immediately protested when Dr Dashti and a second MP, Aseel Al-Awadhi, turned up at the Assembly without a hijab, the simple head-scarf that covers the hair and is compulsory for women in public in Saudi Arabia and Iran but optional across most Gulf nations.

One MP sought a ruling from the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, whose “fatwa department” last week decreed that hijab was an obligation for Muslim women, without referring directly to the electoral law.

As a result Dr Rashti tabled an amendment on Sunday demanding that the sharia rider be dropped.

She said Kuwait’s constitution stipulated freedom of choice and equality between the sexes and did not incorporate sharia.

“There’s a group of people who know they cannot Islamise the constitution so they try to Islamise every issue when it comes up,” she said. “I’m going to examine anything that violates the constitution, taking it law by law.”

… A private citizen has filed a private suit against Dr Dashti and Professor al-Awadhi for not wearing the hijab, which is due to be heard before the country’s constitutional court later this month.

Read It All…

(HH: This stand could land these women in jail or get them or their families killed. Westerners do not realize just how big of a protest this is in the Muslim world.

Anyone who despairs of Islam ever reforming needs to scan the polls at Muslims Against Sharia and Saudi Controlled Al-Arabiya.

You will find the usual bedrock of anti-Semitism and sense of Muslim manifest Destiny that you might expect. But you will also find very strong minority currents of Western style Liberal thought. A great many people across the Muslim world would LOVE to be able to treat their religion the way most Western Christians do. As a personal comfort and guide that does not demand more than a normal, secular lifestyle can accommodate.

Their leaders are well aware of how slippery is the slope of reform. But these same leaders often find themselves backing this or that reform in order to protect their own power. This is known as shooting yourself in the foot.

With every reform established the hunger of the people for a normal life, free from religious or secular Big Brothers watching their every move, becomes greater and greater. Go ask the Soviet Duma how well Western Reforms go over in a totalitarian state but you might need a Ouija Board to make contact since that body is as dead as Stalin.

It is well not to forget though that even the most reform minded Middle Easterner often has other attitudes that they do even try to examine objectively. Such as the aforementioned anti-Israel/anti-Jew, Muslims are just awesome and Westerners are naive at best self-aggrandizement. But past history shows that once they allow for individual rights and secular law the end result will be the decay of the other superstitious and hateful traditions. It couldn’t hurt, as the Jewish lady said while spooning chicken soup into the dead man.)

STOP THE PRESSES: The White House thinks ALL Liberal dissenters should take off their pajamas and get real!

(HH here: Hold the phone Gracie! In perusing Huffington Post today I see Mr. Harwood (NBC’s Chief Washington Correspondent and featured in my last post) takes issue with the claim that his White House quote was meant to indicate a specific hostility toward the LBGT community or their activists. Oh no! Far from it he says. The W.H. advisor was referring to ALL who dissent on ANY of Obama’s initiatives or their timing!!!

Take it away Huff:

In an email to the Huffington Post on Monday, Harwood clarified that the quote was not meant to convey any displeasure on the part of the administration for the gay community’s public advocacy.

My comments quoting an Obama adviser about liberal bloggers/pajamas weren’t about the LGBT community or the marchers,” he wrote. “They referred more broadly to those grumbling on the left about an array of issues in addition to gay rights, including the war in Afghanistan and health care and Guantanamo— and whether all that added up to trouble with Obama’s liberal base...”

So, in answer to whether THAT group is a problem with Obama’s “Liberal Base” the analyst told all those grumbling fools to: “take off the pajamas, get dressed, and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult”

As I noted in my last post; if Obama and his flunkies feel THIS is closely divided they only confirm the opinion of those that call Obama an Affirmative Action President. Even George W. had more political experience than Obama and HE was attacked Left and Right for being too under qualified!!! And that was before he lost the ability to form a complete sentence in English.

Liberal after Liberal is being seen to shake their head, startle awake and ask “What the HELL was I thinking?” Hopefully this latest insult to the loyalty AND intelligence of any Liberal who dares dissent from the Great One’s Plan will accelerate the process.

Good Luck to us all.)