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
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)

I LIKE this guy, I don’t even have to add the bit about how it applies to the Right too!

Hate Mail of the Day: Understanding the Crypto-Religious Mentality of the Left
Posted by David Swindle on Oct 1st, 2009

It’s been a long time since I’ve gotten hate mail. And, oh, how I’ve missed it.

Five years ago when I was a leftist op/ed columnist for my college paper the hate mail would come in regularly as I delivered a new radical assault against the Iraq War, the Bush administration, and the Conservative Movement each week.

This one did not come as the result of a piece I’d written but as something I’d done. After weeks of putting up with “Pbrauer,” one of NewsReal’s leftist trolls, I finally decided to ban him. The previous day I’d given him a warning and he’d decided to ignore it. …
He sent me an angry email in response to his banishment. It was every bit as ad hominem as his comments:


Your response was not at all unexpected, frankly I am surprised that I lasted this long at David Horowitz’ blog. He wouldn’t know the truth if it was staring him in the face. Or maybe he would, but would not admit because it didn’t fit his agenda.

You as young man at the tender age of 25, idolize this creep? He is on the fringe, you are on the fringe, of reality that is. Horowitz was once on the radical left, now he is on the radical right. The term “Koolaid Drinking” comes from the fact that the followers of Jim Jones drank Koolaid laced with cyanide. While I wouldn’t equate Horowitz exactly with Jim Jones, I would say your dedication to a man so distructive is not far off.

When I said you had an unfortunate surname, I meant no harm. Most normal people would have responded with “Yeah, Tell me about it.” But you chose demonize me and tell me I am horrible human being , that told me more about you and your radical agenda than you know.

Please tell Tim and Alissa Birkel, that it my plan to email Rachel Maddow to call them out and publicly invite them on the show. I will provide links to their posts critical to her. Maybe she will and maybe she won’t. I think it’s worth a try.

Rachel Maddow and Media Matters are targets because they are so effective in getting out the truth.

Pete S,

What struck me most about Pete AKA Pbrauer’s hate mail was what I’ve emphasized above. Look at the way he uses the term “the truth.” In his opening paragraph he notes that Horowitz cannot see “the truth.” He concludes by noting that Media Matters and Rachel Maddow are great at getting out “the truth.”

This is the way religious fundamentalists talk. (And note I’m not referring here to the many friendly Christians who comment at NewsReal.) Without even realizing it, Pbrauer affirmed the validity of the central thesis of my favorite Horowitz text, The Politics of Bad Faith. (He’s not the first leftist I’ve encountered who has done this.) For much of the Left they do not have political ideas or opinions. They have political Truth. The Left is a political religion.

And leftists’ behavior reflects that. There is a connection between Pbrauer’s political religion and the behavior he exhibited at NewsReal that caused him to be banned. He never really engaged us in dialogue. His objective was always to sabotage with ad hominem attacks. And the reason is simple: why be in dialogue with someone when they’re pushing a lie? With Pbrauer — and others like him — it is NEVER an exchange of ideas. That’s not what interests them. They have all the correct ideas — The Truth — and we’re just the unsaved heathens who need to hear the leftist gospel.

(HH here: this rings so true when you look at my most recent post! Dana Cloud showed every symptom of religious fanaticism.)

Now there are certainly conservatives that talk and think this way too. I cringe every time I get an email in which a conservative supporter emails me talking about their political opinions as though they were “the Truth.” And I wince when conservatives refuse to consider ideas from the Left or even to have leftist friends. Adopting such an approach perverts conservatism into a Political Faith instead of a coherent, intellectual approach.

Read it all

David come home!!

(HH here: I was over at Frontpage Mag and read a neat piece about the Left by David Horowitz. Sad to say though he only got half the story, blaming the Left for Partisanship but not the Right. Shame on him!! Just kidding. By and large I admire his writings, I just wish he would finish his swing from far Left to far Right and settle in the sensible Middle. We need men of his brains and eloquence to defend against the “infected”.

Here follows my analysis and rewrite of his piece to make it more balanced:)

“This led Moshe Ya’alon, Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs and former chief of Israel’s Defense Forces to describe the left as a “virus.” Actually as Aaron Shuster pointed out in an email, which I am about to cite, one could also say the left is in the grips of a virus — a virus that attacks its brain cells and makes it incapable of ingesting real world facts and consequently of arriving at reasonable judgments.”

(HH: Now, now David, let us not be incomplete. This virus attacks the Rightist in equal numbers. The name if the virus is not Leftism, it is Partisanship! OTherwise your diagnosis fits to a tee. on BOTH sides of the aisle.)

“Radical feminism is one form of the virus. It is an ideology grown out of Marxism whose enemy is the freedom of the individual from collective control, and the freedom of society from the totalitarian state. That is why radical feminists are incapable of seeing the anti-feminist monster in Islam: because Islam is now the center of the revolt against the feminists’ real enemy, which is us.”

(HH: Radical Christians attempting stealth takeovers of loval govs and schools also see the secular world as a demon to be overthrown “by any means”.)

“The progressive virus is a religious virus. Political radicalism is an expression of the inability of human beings to live without meaning; it is the replacement of the hope for a divine redemption in a redemption by political activists, which inevitably leads to a totalitarian state.”

(HH: Anyone who cannot see the hypocritcal face of radical Christianity also in this descrpition is probably a member of an antievolution church and infected themselves.)

“The consequences of infection by the virus are described in my email from Shuster:
“The virus totally blocks the person from the ability to access, let alone comprehend, any facts and evidence that contradict his or her beliefs. Mountains of data have zero effect on already established views, simply because the person flatly rejects considering reading anything that would go against their ‘truth’. The person is terrified to look beyond his established viewpoint. They behave like the Church at the times of Galileo. They refuse to look through the telescope. For instance, during the past eight years, on numerous occasions, I have recommended to my left-wing friends several books on Islam by Ibn Warraq, Ibn Ishaq, Robert Spencer and others. Many borrowed the books, but they were never read. The power of the virus was stronger. The results of my eight-year effort were meager. Two people have read Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.””

(HH: Wow very true! And all the people I tried to get to read sensible books explaining evolution or astrophysics or how homosexuality is strongly based in genes also were unable to assimilate any info that contradicted their worldview. Partisanship my dear Sir, Nor Leftist but ANY real polarization is a bad thing.)

“”The strength of the virus derives from the meaning it supplies to meaningless lives, and the consequent good feelings — intoxicated feelings of virtue and self-righteousness — experienced by the devoted. Here Shuster quotes Melanie Phillips:
“A vital part of leftist thinking is the assumption that to be on the left is the only sensible/decent/principled position to hold and therefore cannot ever be wrong; and that is because to differ from the left is to be of ‘the right’, and the right is irredeemably evil. (The idea that to be opposed to the left is not necessarily to be on ‘the right’ or indeed to take any position other than to oppose their ideology and its brutal effects, is something that the left simply cannot get its head around). And so the true nightmare is that if ‘the right’ turns out to be actually right on anything and the left to be wrong, by accepting this fact the left-winger will by his own definition turn into an evil right-winger. His entire moral and political identity will crumble and he will grow horns and a tail. So to prevent any possibility of this catastrophe occurring, the opponent has to be eliminated.””

(HH:Again, the only thing wrong with the above statement is that the author is blind to his own place in the above group. but on the right instead of the left. The statement SHOULD read thus:)

“A vital part of partisan thinking is the assumption that to be on the side of the partisan whether Communist or Fundamentalist Christian, is the only sensible/decent/principled position to hold and therefore cannot ever be wrong; and that is because to differ from the partisan is to be of ‘the evil ones’, and all ideas of the opposition are irredeemably evil. (The idea that to be opposed to the partisan is not necessarily to be on ‘the other side’ or indeed to take any position other than to oppose their ideology and its brutal effects, is something that the partisan simply cannot get its head around). And so the true nightmare is that if ‘the other’ turns out to be actually right on anything and the partisan to be wrong, by accepting this fact the partisan will by his own definition turn into an evil ‘other’. His entire moral and political identity will crumble and he will grow horns and a tail. So to prevent any possibility of this catastrophe occurring, the opponent has to be eliminated.”

(HH: See how neatly it explains BOTH side’s radicals? Let us continue “finishing” the piece properly:)

This why the only argument that [partisans] have in their public encounters with others is not an argument at all but an indictment: racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe, [Pagan, Homosexual, Socialist, black, white, foreigner etc]…. In the religion of [Partisanism]… in the fevered universe of the virus — the world is an endless plain of battle in which forces of Good ([them]) are ranged against the forces of Evil (the rest of us). At stake is the redemption of the world — or as the environmental totalitarians like to put it, the survival of the planet. No wonder they are deaf to any fact or argument that would bring them back to earth.

The only way to defeat the [partisan] is to turn the table around and attack their moral self-image. [Partisans] are in fact the enemies and oppressors of women, children, gays, minorities and the poor, and moderates should never confront them without reminding them of this fact. If Naomi Wolf, [Noam Chomsky, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson and their] radical friends had their way, America would be disarmed and radical Islam would be triumphant [or we would be living in a Christian taliban culture and either way] women, [children and gays] would be back in the Middle Ages, and the rest of us along with them.

(HH: Now THAT tells the whole story!!!!!)