What does a Moderate Muslim look like

Frank N. Gaffney's latest article is pretty awful, in that it argues that while Obama may not be a Muslim, he clearly supports extremist Muslims like the Muslim Brotherhood.

A better explanation is that more Americans are taking note of the accumulating series of statements and actions by the President that display favoritism, or worse, towards Muslims.

. . .In instance after instance, Mr. Obama has seemingly bent over backwards to accommodate not just Muslim-Americans, but a deeply problematic organization - the Muslim Brotherhood (or Ikhwan) - that purports to represent their interests here.

Among the awful things Obama is doing?

He stated that America was a land of "Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers." Putting Muslims before Jews in his little speech is a mark of disrespect towards Jews apparently. One might argue that we aren't that worried about convincing Jews they are equal citizens with the rest of us.

Obama also wants to allow Muslims Zakat, their form of tithing or religious giving, something. Gaffney, frankly isn't clear, although it seems he believes that this initiative would allow American Muslims to support terrorism more easily.

He supported a United Nations Resolution.

In September 2009, the Obama administration co-sponsored a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution eagerly sought by the Muslim Brotherhood and its friends. The resolution called on member nations to "prohibit and criminalize" speech that offends Islam and its followers. Such an accommodation would clearly violate the Constitution's First Amendment guarantees of freedom of expression.

Yep - I went to the Human Rights Council's website to see if I could track down this offensive document. Let me quote from it, assuming I found the right one.

Recalling also that States should encourage free, responsible and mutually respectful
dialogue,
1. Reaffirms the rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular the right of everyone to hold opinions without interference, as well as the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of their choice, and the intrinsically linked rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, peaceful assembly and association and the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs;

Wait I guess that may not be it, except that later on it does talk about respecting all points of view, and a line about not letting the war on terror interrupt the free exchange of ideas. The document calls on all states to "To refrain from using counter-terrorism as a pretext to restrict the right to freedom of opinion and expression in ways that are contrary to their obligations under international law." Unless Gaffney got the date wrong, I really don't know what he is talking about.

Also Obama has argued that allowing AIG to continue underwriting shariah compliant insurance is a breach of the separation of Church and State; this is just silly. AIG sells a number of products and supports a number of different clienteles - to argue that they should simply shut down part of their business to please xenophobes is nonsensical.

Obama supported the "megamosque" near Ground Zero, by which I assume Gaffney means the community center with a mosque in it.

Subsequent efforts to distance himself from that stance, in the face of intense criticism from the public and politicians of both parties, has only put into even sharper focus his pandering to this community.

Hilarious. Obama's immediate abandonment of his support for the Cordoba Center shows how subservient he is to the Muslim Brotherhood, who must be very very easy to please.

Anyway going back to my initial question - how many Muslims of any type would want to see Shariah compliant insurance shut down? How many support the Cordoba Center? More to the point, how many are OK with being seen as second class citizens the way Gaffney seems to want them?

You may already be living under Shariah Law

At least the Imam behind the Cordoba Project seems to think so. He said that the American political system is "Shariah compliant," according to Media Matters.

The reason why Muslims are fleeing many of their societies to countries like Australia, western Europe, United States and Canada is because the societal mandates of an Islamic society and Islamic State is in fact the kind of structure of society that we see in Western societies - the ability of people to participate in issues of governance, issues of the economic wellbeing and economic pie are fundamental to Islamic principles of governance.

Interesting thought. But of course, those who see Islam as something to be feared and opposed, will naturally be uncomfortable at the idea that our Society is compatable with Islam.

I do strongly suggest checking out that link; puts the lie to some of the fearmongering about this guy.

Seeing Both Sides of the Issue

Dennis Prager's latest article takes on Liberals for being narrow minded and not seeing both sides of the issue.

A related defining characteristic of the left is the ascribing of nefarious motives to conservatives. For the left, a dismissal of conservatives' motives is as important as is dismissal of the conservatives as people. It is close to impossible for almost anyone on the left -- and I mean the elite left, not merely left-wing blogs -- to say "There are good people on both of sides of this issue." From Karl Marx to Frank Rich of The New York Times, this has always been the case.

. . . This is not true of elite conservatives. Leading conservative columnists, leading Republicans, etc., rarely depict liberals as motivated by evil. Conservatives can say "There are good people on both sides of the issue" because we actually believe it.

This is somewhat laughable, not in the least because of Pragers previous statements.

The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable. If the left wins, America's values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses.

. . . The issue is that if Democrats want to win, they can do so only if bad things happen to America.

And these are just Pragers words. I haven't even brought up beloved Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, who certainly are important in the conservative movement and certainly hate and express hatred of Liberals.

This is related back to the Cordoba Center Controversy; Prager spends the bulk of his article printing intemperate remarks on the issue which suggest that bigotry might explain some of the opposition to the Mosque. Which, of course it does (one need only watch the video of a black man happening through an anti Mosque rally and getting immediately harrassed by the crowd to realize the ugliness of some of those who oppose this Mosque).

However, in the spirit of Pragers criticism, I will concede that while much of the Mosque Opposition is inspired by Anti-Muslim Bigotry, not all of it is. There are good people on both sides of this debate. And a whole lot of bigots on one side of it.

Does She Believe It

Sometimes when you are reading an article, and they say something particularly non-sensical, you wonder if they believe it themselves. Carol Platt Liebau's latest article provides a case in point.

From the gay marriage case to the Ground Zero mosque debate, the elites don't even offer the courtesy of presenting principled rebuttals of their opponents’ arguments. Instead, they dismiss them scornfully as the product of inferior minds, unworthy of consideration by intelligent people.

Laughable. The truth is that of course Liberals and Populists have expounded on why they support Gay Marriage and support the Cordoba Center ad naseum. How you can read, for example, Mayor Bloombergs defense of the Cordoba Center, and feel like he hasn't presented a principle rebuttal of those who oppose is impossible. And there have been plenty of other well reasoned responses.

Return of the Quotations Page

Yep - we have the Quotations Page back. Perhaps I will begin to change the Quotations more often, and start updating it.

What Motivates Glenn Beck?

Or, does Glenn Beck have messianic tendancies?An article by Ben Dimiero at Media Matters suggests that maybe he does.

Earlier the same week, Beck explained that he was promoting "the plan that [God] would have me articulate, I think, to you," against "darkness." While notable on their own merits, Beck's comments were especially striking because they marked what was (at the time) the culmination of Beck's regular portrayal of himself as fighting on behalf of "good" against the forces of "evil" and "darkness."

Since then, Beck has made it abundantly clear that he does not use this sort of language metaphorically -- he quite literally believes he is fighting on the side of God against Satan.

Some of this is excusable. Mormons and many other faiths take comfort in the thought that God has a plan for them, that if they live rightly they are in some way fullfilling the plan that God has for them. This provides some comfort; when you succeed it is God's will, and when things don't go great, perhaps it is God placing you on a different path.

That said, given that Beck apparently sees liberals and progressives as evil and as essentially on the side of Satan (he even compared Obama to Lucifer), well it's not entirely healthy. It's one thing to believe that God loves you; it's another to believe that God hates or condemns someone else.

Mosques and Obvious Lies

Emmett Tyrell's latest article concerns the Mosque issue, and particularly Obama's decision to speak out on it. It's a common response; Obama is inexperience and stupid and out of touch or he would never have gotten involved in this particular SNAFU. While Tyrell pretty clearly attacks the Cordoba Center, at least he isn't calling Obama a secret Muslim.

Still he does tell a bit of a fib.

It put me in mind of his inability to defuse the controversy over health care. Any sensible president would have relented as opposition to health care reform grew to the majority position. He would have settled for some sort of compromise, but not the community organizer turned president. He wanted it all. He lunged on and created among the electorate a row over national health care that divided the nation and put some of us in mind of a civil war that continues to rage.

What a nasty lie. In fact Obama abandoned single payer immediately, and abandoned the public option not long afterwords. Yes the Health Reform bill improved a few things, but to pretend that the White House was unwilling to compromise is just to deny reality. They compromised enormously, and frankly more than they should have based on how many Republican supported the final bill.

As for the Mosque issue, and Islam in general, check out this post at the Slactivist, and consider who nice it is to be a Christian when it comes to the apology department.

A Non-Mosque Post

I have to admit I've been hitting the subject of the "Ground Zero" Mosque pretty hard lately (and may return to it later on today), but for a change of pace let's call John Stossel a liar.

Stossel's latest article is about privitizing Social Security; he notes accurately that the public taste for this idea is pertty low. But then he has to lie in order to make his case.

First, there never has been a trust fund! Your FICA tax payments were not saved or invested. Social Security transferred them to current retirees. Second, in return for IOUs, Congress raided Social Security's budget surplus every year and spent like any other tax revenue.

Those IOUs are what most of us call US Treasuries, one of the most secure investments on the planet. It's possible that Stossel doesn't in fact know this; he imagines the Social Security office recieving scribbled IOUs from congress. If he doesn't know this though, that shows a certain amount of stupidity or lack of care. I think he probably does know it, but chooses to fudge the truth anyway.

This 9/11 Mosque Stuff just keeps coming

In a way I'm tired about blogging about it, and in another, this is something I legitimately feel passionately about. So there you go. And now that Obama has weighed in on it, you can expect another week of articles. Today's article comes from Michael Medved.

No, all Muslims aren’t the same, but all Mosques are the same, in one important sense at least: they all celebrate Islam. They exalt its teachings, traditions, history and adherents.

Yes, American Muslims enjoy a right to celebrate their faith in their mosques.

But it remains wildly inappropriate to celebrate and glorify one particular faith at the scene of one of the most notorious crimes in its history.

Lets take these in reverse order.

1. If someone wanted to build a Christian Church in the exact same spot, Medved would have nothing to say about it.

2. The first bit essentially proclaims that any Mosque is the same as the Mosque that Osama bin Ladin worships at (assuming he gets to go to a Mosque atall). Which is another way of saying that all Islam is responsibile for what Osama bin Ladin did; a point Medved makes clear later on his article.

The insistence on creating such a building on such a place sends a dishonest, disturbing message: that Islam itself bears no special connection to the attacks of 9/11, and that the Mosque’s planners feel no shame over their co-religionists who planned and executed those crimes.

What a poorly constructed paragraph - Medved suggests that the Cordoba Centers funders are putting forward two lies. The first lie is that Islam bears no special connection to the attacks of 9/11; presumably Medved believes this to be a lie.

The second "lie" is that the Mosque's founders feel no shame over their co-religionists attack on 9/11. But presumably Medved actually believes that they don't feel any shame; he probably believes they should, but they don't. All Muslims should feel terribly guilty to be Muslims all the time, and certainly whenever they are in New York City, near Ground Zero.

On Cordoba House

Good article about Cordoba House (or the "ground zero" mosque) by over at "Inside-Out the Beltway."

First, the Cordoba House is deliberately, expressly, and unequivocally intended to stand for the diametric opposite of what the 9/11 attackers believed. It would stand for inclusion, reconciliation, and understanding across faiths and cultures. In fact, in many ways, the Muslim founders of the Cordoba House (and its imam) are the sorts of people that bin Laden and his adherents hate most, because they are seen as traitors to the radicals' beliefs and cause.

. . . So the only way that someone could ever confuse the Cordoba Initiative with radical, militant Islam is if that person thought that Islam itself is inseparable from terrorism or terrorist sympathies (or had been misled by demagogues to believe the Cordoba House aligned itself with radical Islam).

And there it is - read the whole article, it's very good.

Fear and Loathing at Ground Zero

In this case Fear and Loathing of Muslims, at least according to Kevin McCullough's latest article. Apparently Obama made some remarks in favor of the right of Muslims to build a Mosque on land that they own that happens to be near Ground Zero.

Question, Mr. President, "Do you feel that all Muslims have a right to exercise their religion?"

How about the nearly 2 million of them world-wide that buy into the exact same brand of Islam that the killers of 9/11 practiced? Do you feel that they have the right to practice that brand of Islam in the United States? How about on the sacred ground of Ground Zero?

Even the "moderate" practitioners of that faith seem to be having some real trouble coming to clarity on not encouraging their fellow Islamists to be so very insensitive.

"Moderate" Muslims, like "Moderate" Blacks or "Moderate" Hispanics need to spend a certain amount of time berating their fellow Muslims for not being more accommodating the white males who basically run everything.

Let's also point out that McCullough doesn't understand what the free exercise of religion entails. Allowing Muslims to exercise their freedom means letting them worship; it does not give them permission to commit terrorist acts. It's also clear that the Mosque at ground zero is not going to be sympathetic to Islamic Terrorists, except in so far as just advocating Islam is sympathetic to Islamic Terrorism.

One wonders if a Baptist organization that seemed sympathetic to Anti-Abortion terrorists was to want to set up a church across from an Abortion clinic, if McCullough would have trouble separating the terrorist act from the religion itself.

Your Weekly Rush - Mosques

Well Rush has been speaking about the "Ground Zero" mosque, as you would expect. He's against it.

There are 23 mosques in New York, the Constitution does not guarantee you can put your church anywhere you want, it just says you cannot be denied the practice of worship. There are all kinds of mosques in New York, 23 already. They could put another one anywhere they want. This site is purposefully provocative. There's nothing good that can come of this. Nothing good. It's a bad idea all around. Nobody's against mosques, and the First Amendment does not guarantee you can put one up wherever you want it to go.

. . . Ladies and gentlemen, zoning laws. I'm sure have encountered them. Zoning laws tell churches where they can and can't go all the time.

A few points we might point out here. First of all, earlier this week we discussed the fact that the Ground Zero Mosque is hardly the only one being protested / harassed in this nation. So to pretend that conservatoids are happy with mosques, just not there, is a bit disingenuous.

Secondly, when you propose that Zoning laws be changed to prevent Muslims from building a Mosque on land they own, and that is what Rush is proposing, you are infringing on their religious freedom. I don't see any other way to look at it. It would be one thing if they were applying to put a Mosque in land not zoned for that; at that point they would have to go through a review process. But this Mosque has already gone through that process. Rush is proposing, as many others are, that the process be changed, essentially, to harass Muslims.

Particularly Stupid

Ben Shapiro is regularly grist for my mill, but sometimes he outdoes himself, as he did in this weeks article.

We used to call it tyranny. Now, apparently, we call it an "independent judiciary."

At least that's the way the left sees it. The role of the judiciary in this country, according to liberals, is to act as a sort of super-Senate, qadis on the hill who decide based on whim and fancy how the rest of us should live. The American people are benighted morons; the judiciary is full of brilliant moral thinkers. They must rule us.

Note how Ben thoughtlessly avoids any engagement with what the courts are actually doing or with what Liberal might actually think. But to clarify, Courts interpret laws in regards to the Constitution and precedent; if a law is found to be in conflict with constitutional principles, the courts will overturn said law. This isn't because these judges are "brilliant moral thinkers," this is because they know what the constitution says. Now we might disagree with their assessment (with the current Supreme Court I often disagree), but let's not pretend it's something it's not.

Shapiro basically then argues for the legislatures and Congress to remove several hot button issues from the Jurisdiction of the courts (those issues regarding Gay Marriage, Abortion and Immigration), and if the Courts continue to hear such cases to defund them. I'm not sure exactly how this would work; if you have a case involving abortion you could go to the lower courts but not the higher ones? More to the point, once we've taken this idiotic step, what's to stop the Legislature from moving such cases as Worker Safety and Consumer Protection out of the Courts Jurisdiction as well? Seems like a pandora's box.

Quayle's Kid

Apparently Dan Quayles kid is running for Congress.



I like the way he starts marching directly towards the camera at the end. It gives the impression he can't wait to finish the ad so he can march to Washington and "knock the hell out of the place." I also like how he underlines that he was raised right.

Except, as Salon notes, he helped found a gossip site called "Dirty Scottsdale."

Is this a Theocracy?

Terrence Jeffrey's latest article takes on the courts striking down Prop 8 out there in California.

The Founding Fathers understood the laws of nature, the Ten Commandments, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution to be wholly consistent with one another. Judge Walker and the same-sex marriage movement have declared war on them all.

So I guess this is a theocracy after all; or at least the founding fathers intended it to be so.

Jeffrey also notes that it is apparently as much of a crime for children to be raised by homosexuals as it is for you to be robbed or murdered. I don't know, that girl from Glee seems to be doing ok.

Why do those Muslims have to Build a Mosque in Lower Manhatten?

I have to be honest about this one; it's very simple to me. Are the people who want to build the so-called Ground Zero Mosque American Citizens? Yes. Do they own the land they want to build on? They do. Than what the hell business is it of yours what they do with the land?

I understand that those who are protesting the Mosque and complaining about it incessently have the freedom of speech to do so; similarly I have the right to suggest that if you don't want a Mosque there or anywhere else in America, you essentially don't believe in Freedom of Religion. Maybe you are ok with freedom of religion for your church and churches like it, but not in general.

The test of your belief in freedom isn't your willingness to tolerate religions or ideas you like; it's your willingness to tolerate religions and ideas you hate (but that you can't point to them causing direct harm).

I note this because as it turns out there are people all over the United States protesting Mosques. Both Salon's War Room and the New York Times are covering this wave of mosque opposals. Sort of answers the question of why the Ground Zero Mosque builders want to keep at it. If the "Ground Zero" mosque is stopped, what happens to all these Mosques around the country that people are trying to shut down? Well they probably get shut down.

And if you are uncomfortable with a Mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero, uncomfortable enough to ask them to shut it down, how can you really argue against the decisions of citizens of Murfreesboro, Tenn., Temecula, Calif., or Sheboygan, Wis., to protest the Mosques in their communities?

I am, I should say, heartened to note that one of the Defenders of the Mosque in Temecula is a fellow Mormon.

Larry Slusser, a Mormon and the secretary of the Interfaith Council of Murietta and Temecula, went to the protest to support the Muslim group. “I know them,” he said. “They’re good people. They have no ill intent. They’re good Americans. They are leaders in their professions.”

Of the protesters, he said, “they have fear because they don’t know them.”

Religious freedom is also at stake, Mr. Slusser said, adding, “They’re Americans, they deserve to have a place to worship just like everybody else.”

So after all this Prop 8 stuff, that's nice to see.

False Gods

Cal Thomas, like many Consrvatoids, is upset that a judge struck down Proposition 8, and argues so in his latest article.

The decision by a single, openly gay federal judge to strike down the will of 7 million Californians, tradition dating back millennia (not to mention biblical commands, which the judge decided, in his capacity as a false god, to also invalidate) is judicial vigilantism equal to Roe vs. Wade.

I strongly believe that it is not the capacity of any Judge to set themself up as a God, false or otherwise. Judges are there to interpret the law not to reign in heaven!

That said, I also don't think Judges should be rulling based on what they think God wants, but should interpret the law. Prop 8 violated the California Constitution, according to Judge Walker, so he overturned it. Cal Thomas obviously disagrees with me as his article is largely about how a vengeful God is probably upset at us for failing to serve God sufficiently.

It's Not Me, It's You

According to Star Parker's latest article, the people building the Ground Zero Mosque believe that by doing so they can reach out to Americans and create more harmony between Islam and America. No need, apparently.

Critical to grasp here is the suggestion of the need for dialogue. That the existence of Islamic terrorism is the result of problems with us Americans as well as problems that may exist in Islam. And it all would be fixed if we understood each other better.

This is simply false.

Americans don’t need any lessons about freedom and tolerance.

. . . Feisel Abdul Rauf should spend his $100 million, wherever he is getting it from, to advance the cause of freedom in Islamic countries. That is where the problem is. It’s certainly not here.

So that's comforting. We Americans have never done anything for the Islamic World to be upset at, and there is certainly no need for us to understand Islam.

Personally I think this debate over the Ground Zero Mosque proves the opposite. The essential problem is that one group of American Citizens wants to build a religious center on lands they own. And as American Citizens they should have the right to do so. Unless, somehow, you don't think Muslims deserve the same rights as the rest of us.

Hallowed Ground

Pat Buchannan, in his latest article, doesn't like the Ground Zero Mosque either.

The issue here is the appalling insensitivity, if not calculated insult, of erecting a mosque two blocks from a World Trade Center where 3,000 Americans were massacred by Islamic fanatics whose Muslim religion was integral to their identity and mission.

It is no more religious bigotry to oppose the Ground Zero Mosque than it would have been religious bigotry to oppose building a Shinto shrine in 1950 on Ford Island in Pearl Harbor, next to the Arizona.

To Americans, the land on which the twin towers stood is hallowed ground, a burial site made scared by the suffering and deaths of all who perished in the horrifying minutes those towers burned and fell.

And there's the rub. Muslims don't count as Americans because of what happened on 9/11. American Muslims aren't citizens in the same way that you and I are citizens (assuming you aren't a Muslim); they are guests here, and should remember their place.

The Muslim Menace Strikes

And their goal? To confuse you. Yep. Fourth Generation Warfare as practiced by the Muslim Menace, strives to confuse you by being provocatively Islamic, according to Scott Wheeler and Buckley Carson, in an article over at Townhall.

Which is why it’s no surprise that Islamists have publicly acknowledged adopting the tactics of 4GW to wage its war against the West; in an open society, we are never exactly sure who the enemy combatants are because they may not shoot at you, or blow something up. They might smile and say “all we want is peace” while provoking you and stretching the limits of your societal tolerance, leaving their targets confused.

Apparently these menacing Muslims know that we intend to maintain our free and open society, which means allowing them to live among us as citizens, invested in the same rights and privilages as any other citizens. They can then provoke us, by acting Islamic, into attacking them. At which point their buddies in the media elite will trump up stories of bigotry.

Islamists know that legal rights and protections provide them the ability to strain our security without even breaking the law, right up until the moment they commit a deadly act of aggression; and since the terrorist often kills himself in the attack, there is no prosecutorial deterrent there either.

And when Middle Eastern looking men intentionally act suspicious and provoke a response from civilians or police, they find a very sympathetic American media willing to help portray them as victims of American bigotry. Which is not too dissimilar to my experience with what should have been a reasoned, legitimate debate over the Ground Zero Mosque; . . .

Alas he wanted to have a sensible rational discussion about the need to treat American Muslims as suspicious foreigners who didn't belong her, and certainly didn't enjoy the same rights as the rest of us, and the evil media and others got in his way.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has weighed in on this issue as well (as quoted at Salon), and frankly is a lot more convincing than these guys.

“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

He's right; there is no rational reason to oppose this mosque unless you just consider American Muslims somehow not deserving the same civil rights as the rest of us.

The Second Great Depression

Ben Shapiro really is dumb. I mean really. I make fun of him a lot, but it takes a certain kind of idiocy to write todays article. Not because he's conservative; a lot of conservatives think that Obama is messing up this country. Nothing wrong with that per se. But . .. well just read this.

And just as during the First Great Depression, economic liberals are declaring that it doesn't exist. "The depression is over," President Herbert Hoover told a group of clergymen in 1930. "I am convinced," he said in 1931, "we have passed the worst and with continued effort we shall rapidly recover." . . .

Hoover was wrong and so are Obama and his lackeys. And just like Hoover, Obama will take measures that are economically feasible in a strong economy but absolutely disastrous in a weak one.

He does, I have to admit, point out that the tariffs passed were a pretty bad idea. But he also suggests that Obama is just like Hoover in that he is proposing Government spending and higher taxes. Except that sounds a bit like good old Roosevelt too, who doesn't appear (directly) in Shapiro's article.

If you are going to rip into Hoover for Government projects, isn't it almost necessary to point out that Roosevelt did much the same thing on a far larger scale? Hoover frankly didn't spend a fraction of what Roosevelt spent, and in fact wasn't really an economic liberal. Certainly not by today's standards.

More to the point, Shapiro even references Roosevelt at the end of his article, albeit obliquely, with "Happy Days are Here Again." Does Shapiro really believe that his readers aren't going to remember the existence of Roosevelt, the great liberal president?

Radical - a useful adjective

Cal Thomas, one of our nations foremost proponents of the "Muslim Menace," continues on that vein in his latest article. But he touchingly adds an adjective - radical - to make it clear that he's not against Islam itself. Just radical Islam. Of course even a shallow reading of his work reveals that Radical Islam is a term so broad as to include most of the Islamic world and certainly the bulk of American Muslims.

Ask yourself: if you wanted to infiltrate a country, wouldn't a grand strategy be to rapidly build mosques from Ground Zero in New York, to Temecula, Calif., and establish beachheads so fanatics could plan and advance their strategies under the cover of religious freedom and that great American virtue known as "tolerance," which is being used against us?

. . . Instead, they build their mosques with minimal opposition from the squishy politicians and elites who could stand against them if they had any backbone. And so those radical Islamists who would dominate America move forward with plans to subjugate us all to their religion and way of life.

See that sounds like it's not just Radical Islam that is the problem. Or to put it more clear, it's seems like Thomas is incapable of recognizing a non radical Islam. But on some level he recognizes that others would be upset at the bigotry of attacking Islam (not to mention the logistics of such an illogical approach), so he adds Radical as a fig leaf.

The Good Old Days

Terry Paulson's latest article is about how bad things are these days what with our dependence on the government and punishment of rich people and all.

For years, American rights have been turned on their heads. It hasn’t been sudden, but that doesn’t make it any less dangerous. Teddy Roosevelt’s Square Deal, Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom, and FDR’s New Deal—all chiseled away at America’s founding principles. All promised a seductive social contract based on “economic rights”—the right to a job, a decent home, medical care, decent wages and benefits.

Yep - if we could only go back to the idyllic time of the 1890s. Back when American workers had no protections and few rights (except for the right to quit and go to another low paying job).

Of course in the 1890s relatively few Americans were employed by the big industrial companies. The service sector existed primarily as a collection of locally owned restaurants and shops. The percentage of Americans working for big corporations is considerablly higher than it was in the 1890s. And big corporations have historically been the ones who have treated their workers the worst. It's one thing to screw over your busboy who you employ and see regularly. It's another to screw over thousands of busboys who you don't know, you assume are either part time highschool pukes or lazy shiftless jerks, and you'll never have to see anyway.

But then again, Paulson presumably doesn't care much about the American working class anwyay; if they wanted to do they would be upper management anyway.