Fashion Hunter: Anti-Americanism

Showing posts with label Anti-Americanism. Show all posts

New York Times Downplays Muslim Fort Hood Terror Plotter

Well that's a surprise.

At Fox Nation (via Memorandum).

I checked the Times' homepage Friday morning, and there was no mention of Naser Abdo on the front page. In hard-copy, the paper's report appeared on Page A11, "Soldier Held Amid Claim of Terror Plot at Fort Hood." Had Private Abdo successfully carried out an attack, the Democrat-Media-Complex would have provided cover, minimizing Islamist influence and attacking counter-jihad bloggers as bigots.

Note: The Times has a report in its Saturday hard-copy edition on Page A15, "Soldier Arrested in Suspected Bomb Plot Had Series of Disputes With Army." I just caught this linked prominently at the homepage, so I guess that's progress.

Army Private Naser Jason Abdo, in Court Appearance, Shouts Name of Fort Hood Shooter Major Nidal Hasan

At LAT, "Accused plotter shouts out name of Ft. Hood killer at hearing."

PFC Nasser Abdo and Iraq Veterans Against the War

Hmm, the antiwar left's got some splainin' to do, and here's the hot-under-the-collar denial of ties to Private Naser Jason Abdo: "IVAW STATEMENT ON NASER ABDO ARREST":

Abdo is not now and has never been a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Shoot, he didn't need to be. The folks at IVAW were happy to set up Abdo as another Bradley Manning, and now they're throwing him under the bus. See Weasel Zippers, "Anti-War Group Scrubs Website of Involvement With Muslim Soldier ."Arrested For Plotting Second Ft. Hood Terror Attack…"

See also Alana Goodman, "Fort Hood Suspect Had Left-Wing Fan Base."

And the main reporting on this is at This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here. See, "IVAW and Abdo," "IVAW release, and Mother Jones," and "Abdo’s accomplices." (Via Memeorandum.)

Why Are Male Bloggers Pretending to Be Lesbians?

I blogged Jonah Goldberg's commentary piece yesterday morning, and now here's an interview with Glenn Reynolds:

How Many Male 'Lesbian' Bloggers Are Out There?

Radical anti-American lesbian feminism is on the rocks, but you knew that. The twist is that even radical anti-American lesbian feminists need fake radical anti-American lesbian feminists to keep the flame from being extinguished.

At Washington Post, "‘Paula Brooks,’ editor of ‘Lez Get Real,’ also a man."

And don't miss Jonah Golberg, "The 'Gay Girl in Damascus' hoax is worse than a lie. It's propaganda" (via Instapundit).

Noam Chomsky Attacks Israel's 'Expansion Over Security' at UCLA Lecture on 'Palestine in Crisis'

I experimented with video blogging, and this clip captures more of Chomsky's comments on U.S. policy than his remarks on Israeli expansionism. Here he argues that from Washington's perspective democracy and freedom in the Middle East are antithetical to American interests. The U.S. and Israel allegedly fear the Arab Spring because the revolutions threaten American hegemony in the region. Chomsky spouts a lot of disinformation, which is his trademark. He says at 40 seconds that "about 90 percent of Egyptians view the United States as the main enemy" and that "about 80 percent in the region wanted to be sure Iran had nuclear weapons":

Actually, public opinion in Egypt is much more complicated than that, and while there's obviously variation across individual polls and over time, there's no support for Chomky's claim of "80 percent" across the region supporting Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. In fact, according to a Pew Global Attitudes survey in April 2010, "a majority of respondents in Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon as well as Israel said the spread of nuclear weapons was a major threat" (the number was 41 percent in Egypt).

But these are only quick examples of the kind of propaganda one hears at a Noam Chomsky lecture. Indeed, what's even more fascinating than hearing Chomsky's America-bashing is observing the rock star status he's afforded by the huge crowd of collegiate wannabe bohemians, diehard pro-terror communists, and the campus Islamist jihadis who thronged the event. I'll post pictures later. Chomsky was swarmed by extremist acolytes upon entering the lecture hall. Upon speaking, it was as if his attacks on "American imperialism" and "corporate dominance" were like throwing bags of candy to children. I arrived at UCLA at 5:00pm, and the event was scheduled from 6:00 to 8:00pm. There was a long line out in front of the lecture hall, and while I was dressed casual with my baggy shorts and Famous Stars and Straps shirt and cap, I nevertheless hid the cover of Peter Collier and David Horowitz's, Anti Chomsky Reader with my copy Chomsky and Ilan Pappé's Gaza in Crisis. No need to get these thugs riled. That said, I haven't shaved in weeks, and the beard's getting a little scruffy, frankly, and thus I imagine that grizzled look went over well among the hordes. Honestly, some Muslim women simply do not smell good, and that's to say nothing of the countercultural radicals who look like they just awoke from a night's sleep out on the sidewalks of Westwood. Hey, I guess it's a good thing that the Muslim dude I saw in building of the Samueli School of Engineering, where I stopped off to take a leak before heading back out to the parking garage, was performing his ablutions right there at the bathroom sink!

In any case, listening to Chomsky drone on lethargically, I was reminded of this passage from David Horowitz's essay at the reader, "Noam Chomsky's Anti-American Obsession":

It would be easy to demonstrate how on every page of every book and in every statement that Chomsky has written the facts are twisted, the political context is distorted (and often inverted) and the historical record is systematically traduced. Every piece of evidence and every analysis is subordinated to the overweening purpose of Chomsky's lifework, which is to justify an idée fixe -- his pathological hatred of his own country.

The point was evident at the moment Chomsky commenced. The talk was on "Palestine and Israel in Crisis," but Chomsky was emphatic in stressing the everything Israel does "is at the direction of the United States." That claim sets the tone, of course, for Chomsky's attacks on America's imperial ambitions in the region. But despite the monotonous delivery, Chomsky was sharp intellectually and stayed on point in discussing the Middle East "crisis." And note that nothing, not a single fact surrounding the cycles of violence and bloodshed in the region, is the fault of the Palestinians. He made a big point, a number of times, to stress that the U.S. and Israel face a "crisis of legitimation" in world opinion. He argued, by that token, that this was in fact an increasing "crisis of delegitimation" that's bringing about a "tsunami" of condemnation against the United States, which Chomsky eagerly claimed to be a declining power, but which will nevertheless will remain influential of global affairs for some time to come. (Which begs the question of course of whether or not the U.S. really is the "hegemon" that's the basis for Chomsky's decades-long excoriation of his own country.)

Another term Chomsky used repeatedly was "illegal" --- as in Israel "illegally" occupying Gaza and now "illegally" occupying the West Bank with its "illegal" settlements that form the basis for its policy of "expansion over security." That theme, which was essentially the thesis of the night, was that, according to Chomsky, never has Israel been about peace in the Middle East. He cited a number times when Israel allegedly rejected accommodation with the Palestinians, and instead the Jewish state was alleged to be bent in expansion into the territories it claimed in its numerous wars of conquest. Chomsky laid out a vision of either a future two-state accommodation on the basis of peace (not likely) or Israel's complete decimation of Palestine resulting in a one-state domination. A third option was "what's happening right now." Israel will continue to expand the "illegal" settlements, and the U.S. will continue its "hegemonic" role of regional domination in the Middle East.

At the conclusion of the event, Chomsky responded to questions and went off on his familiar rant about how those who proclaim themselves pro-Israel are actually working feverishly for its moral degeneration and ultimate destruction. Chomsky then returned to the comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa, and while he admitted key differences, he argued that in one key similarity the time will come when Israel's crisis of legitimation becomes overwhelming, and forces upon it a reckoning for the survival of the Jewish state.

I note here at the end that Chomsky concluded the question and answer session by arguing that Osama Bin Laden was assassinated, "murdered," so that the U.S. could avoid putting Bin Laden on trial, because "they have no evidence against him."

That final jab at the U.S. went over extremely well with the crowd of anti-Americans and Arafat-styled student-cum-terrorists.

'We've got something stronger than bombs, we have solidarity ...'

What's perplexing is not that Obama hired this guy, but why Van Jones thought it good to sign on with a Democratic presidential administration. Musta thought he'd be getting some reciprocal solidarity from folks within and around the Oval Office.

At Gateway Pundit, "SHOCKING DISCOVERY: The Day After 9-11 Van Jones Led Rally Where They Cheered American Killers." And Big Government, "Racist Van Jones Rally Cheered 9/11 Attacks" and iOWNTHEWORLD (via Memeorandum):

How Progressives Talk About Israel Behind Closed Doors

I'm a much more intelligent political scientist than I was five years ago. And amazingly, I owe this to blogging --- that is, to being online and reading the subterranean filth of progressive anti-colonialism (among so much else, unfortunately). It's been developing, but I've had one of those life awakenings in which you say to yourself, "If I had this to do over again ..." Mostly, though, I just shake my head and look forward to a chance at sabbatical, when I can do something more formal in the way of writing. Anyway, five years ago, when I first read Walt and Mearsheimer's "The Israel Lobby" I looked at it mostly from the perspective of pluralist theory in political science. Had I known more about the left's drive to a new Jewish Holocaust I no doubt would have been more discerning in my appraisal. But it's all come together over these last fews years, and I can see things in a new light. There's a moral inversion in the world, and an individual's stance on Israel is a pretty good indicator of one relationship to universal right. I keep telling myself that perhaps it's not so bad, that the screaming demons of contemporary evil are a blip of reality. Nothing to worry about in the long run. Truth and justice will prevail. But again and again I'm taken aback, and not just on Israel and the Middle East. Abortion politics and the normalization of social deviancy on cultural issues want to drive me to drink. But as we've seen with Itamar and Jerusalem, rarely is the immediacy of moral bankruptcy so powerful as in the militant annihilationism facing Israel.

At any rate, I'm going off like this after reading Scott McConnell's essay at Mondoweiss, "Five years ago today, Walt and Mearsheimer gave Americans the vocabulary to discuss a central issue." The piece has something of a hush-hush feel to it, like we're allowed to peek inside the redoubts of conspirators. Here's this for example:

What stood out from the first page was the tone—measured but firm, uncompromising but not strident. Every assertion seemed precisely weighed, put forth without exaggeration, flamboyance, or polemical excess. Also striking was the absence of gratuitous deference towards the opponent. There was no pulling of punches, no telltale signs of anxiety about the consequences of an argument taken too far, or indeed made at all. Such was my first reaction to reading John Mearsheimer’s and Steve Walt’s Israel Lobby paper, posted five years ago today on the website of Harvard’s Kennedy School, and published in shorter form in the London Review of Books. It had arrived at the opening of business one morning in an email from Michael Desch, then a professor at Texas A&M’s George H. W. Bush School of Government. I sent it across the hall to my colleague Kara Hopkins, a woman a generation my junior, somewhat less engaged than I by the Middle East, and certainly less persuaded that a coterie of neocons had gotten George W. Bush on a leash and were leading him this way and that. Three minutes later I walked into her office, where she had the paper up on her screen. “This is exactly what I believe,” said Kara, words that I had never heard from her before on any subject, much less this one.

That's some significant moment, that Kara Hopkins realized that she wasn't alone in her suppressed anti-Israel sentiments. No doubt it was a relief, and I'm sure this happened in history, political science, and sociology departments around the country, if not further across the academy. But keep reading McConnell's piece, and keep in mind that he's publishing this at Mondoweiss, which is the progressive left's most aggressive anti-Israel blog on the web. Omar Barghouti's publishing there as well, which gives you and idea of eliminationist pedigree of the roster. But back to the essay. See the further discussion and how it's an explication of un-closeting anti-Semitism in elite circles:

Save a handful of exceptions, mainstream dissent from the special relationship with Israel has taken the form of the dry aside or the understated sentence or two published amidst a lot of other stuff, almost as if the author hoped it would not be noticed. Occasionally public figures at the end of their careers made remarks that more resembled outbursts, the parting shot of the seventy- five year old senator or aging general. But more often than not, ever sensitive to the perils of anti-semitism, Americans let their fears of contributing to injustice shut off necessary debates ...

The reasons differed for every individual, and were composite. There was the worry about offending close Jewish friends or colleagues, concerns over possible adverse professional consequences, or the general inhibitions associated with the Jewish power/leading to anti-Semitism/leading to the Holocaust nexus.* The result was that critical analysis of the special relationship was shoved to the margins of American political discourse. The discussions may have been richer and more involved on the Marxist and anti-imperialist Left than on the quasi-isolationist Old Right, but in neither case did they much influence the political mainstream. Even in the wake of the Iraq disaster, with the looming prospect more American wars in the Middle East, Israel’s role was alluded at most in passing, but seldom really pursued.

Seriously. McConnell's just admitting that the kind of anti-Semitism found on the fringes of ideological extremism in earlier decades is now mainstream. Those who follow these questions wouldn't be surprised. The problem is that it's not just the academy. Yesterday Reuters described the Jerusalem bus attack with terrorism in quotation marks --- as in "terrorist attack" --- to indicate that this was some made up meme fostered by Israeli officials. It's despicable. But this is the kind of whitewashing of evil that passes for mainstream reporting.

More later ... (and keep reading that Mondweiss essay ... it's like another world).

RELATED: From Lawrence Auster, "What cheers Scott McConnell?"

Planned Parenthood Hijacks Girl Scouts

A mom knocked on our door last weekend with her daughter asking if we'd like to buy some Girl Scout cookies. My son answered the door himself, and I asked him what kind he liked and he picked the peanut butter patties and the thin mints. The woman's daughter, in her brown Girl Scout outfit, was smaller than my son, probably about 7 or 8 years old. Then last Monday, walking out to the parking lot from my college, a young man had a big wagon filled with boxes of Girl Scout cookies. I asked him if I could buy a couple, and after I paid him he called his daughter over. She was rolling down the grass hills out in back of the administration. He wanted her to say "thank you" for buying some cookies. She ran over and said thanks then galloped back over to frolic on the lawn. She was also about 7 or 8 years old. This is what I have in mind when thinking about the Girl Scouts. But apparently the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts has been distributing "Healthy, Happy and Hot" brochures sponsored by Planned Parenthood. These were sent out as part of a U.N. panel on Commission on the Status of Women.

Way to go progressives! Sex guides for little girls. It doesn't get more morally bankrupt than this.

The Stand Firm page has a report, "Girl Scouts Distribute Planned Parenthood Sex Guide at UN Meeting."

Also, at The Other McCain, "Forget the Thin Mints: Now Girl Scouts Learning to Be ‘Healthy, Happy and Hot’."

Glenn Beck – Jan 21, 2011

A follow-up to "Full Transcript for Glenn Beck's 'Shoot Them in the Head' Comments."

I was watching Beck's broadcast while working on the post. He's been on Fox two years, and the introduction reminded me of the program in early 2009, just after Obama took power. I nice flashback and update:

Full Transcript for Glenn Beck's 'Shoot Them in the Head' Comments

Part of the initial explanation for the left's jumping the gun (metaphor) on the news of the Tucson shooting is that the Democrat-Socialists have been so thoroughly repudiated at the polls. Daniel Henninger argued at the Wall Street Journal that last November "was no ordinary election. What voters did has the potential to change the content and direction of the U.S. political system, possibly for a generation."

This reality will be the driving fact of life in politics over the next couple of years, and as William Jacobson pointed out --- and Rush Limbaugh reiterated on the air --- we now have a foretaste of the kinds of progressive delegitimation campaigns that will be deployed for Obama's reelection efforts. And recall, a majority of Democrats continue to believe that Sarah Palin was at least partially responsible for the shooting. So it pays to remember that the left is working on a program of lies, disinformation, and propaganda.

The latest example is the next iteration of the left's campaign to destroy Glenn Beck. Patterico decimated Charles Johnson's anti-Beck smears yesterday, "No, Charles Johnson, Glenn Beck Did Not Tell His Viewers to Shoot Anyone in the Head." But the story's still trending at Memeorandum. And even though the full transcript proves that Beck's segment was pure commentary on the left's neo-communism --- and the buyer's remorse of the Democrats' progressive base --- dishonest leftist bloggers continue to allege that right-wing rhetoric is causing outbreaks of violence. But a simple perusal of the transcript reveals perfectly that Beck was warning elected Democrats that the violent progressive proletariat had them in the crosshairs:

I want to warn you now, Democrats, your party is over. And I don't mean — all tea parties and Republicans are going to beat you in November. I mean the Democrats, as we used to know them, the Democrats that were in my family growing up, are over.
I'm going to show you the civil war, the video evidence in the civil war in the Democratic Party that's happening right now. And no one in the media is exposing it. And it is dangerous, what is happening.
The radicals have infected the party. They have been brought in by politicians who don't really care about anything. They just want to win. They've been tolerating the revolutionaries — the Democrats have.
But more importantly, the revolutionaries have been tolerating those politicians. For the moment, the radical fringe of the party is now. Just today, Van Jones was speaking at America's Future Now conference.
He is speaking to a group of progressives. I find this extraordinarily disturbing, because I believe this man is sending a message. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VAN JONES, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISER FOR GREEN JOBS: I think that when we look back to the history of the Obama administration and look back at the history of our progressive movement, that this week will mark a historic inflection point when progressives decided to be progressive again in this country. I think something shifted this week.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Yes, it has. It has. This is an ominous statement coming from a revolutionary. Please go to GlennBeck.com and look up "STORM: Reclaiming Revolution." This is his organization. He is in this. From a revolutionary.
I'm sorry but when did the Obama administration not be progressive? Excuse me? They were normal? We have seen progressives. We haven't seen the actual spooky progressives yet. I think you are about to. Something has changed this week. He's right.
But what the politicians don't understand, the ones who have co-opted these revolutionaries and brought them in the process, is they are dangerous. Why? Why? Well, because a lot of them have called for violent revolution in the past and they never distanced themselves from it.
You cannot co-opt and lie to people who believe in something. Why is Ahmadinejad dangerous? Well, because he says he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, OK? The press and the politicians — "Oh, he's just saying that."
Why do they say that? Because nobody in the press and nobody in Washington actually believes a damn thing, except their own image. That's it. This man is a twelver. Look it up. Do you know what it is? It's a revolutionary so dangerous that the Ayatollah Khomeini banned twelvers.
OK. Here's the Ayatollah Khomeini, who is a revolutionary — he says stay away from these guys. They're spooky. He didn't co-opt them because he understood they believed in the 12th Imam coming back, and the way to bring the 12th Imam back is wash the world in blood.
There are politicians like the Ayatollah Khomeini who will do revolution for power. And then there are people like this who are mad men. I never thought I'd say we better learn something from the Ayatollah Khomeini, but here it is.
The media and the politician have all of this wrong. In every single walk of life — you want to know why TV doesn't reflect you? You want to know why Washington doesn't reflect you? Because they don't understand, from the radical revolutionaries to the Islamic extremists — and yes, DOJ, they do exist — to the Tea Party movements.
Just because you in Washington and you who are so out of touch with life in the media, just because you don't believe in anything doesn't mean nobody else does. We do. You know why you're confused by this show? It's because I believe in something. You don't.
Tea parties believe in small government. We believe in returning to the principles of our Founding Fathers. We respect them. We revere them. Shoot me in the head before I stop talking about the Founders. Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government.
I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.
You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they're revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.
Here is my advice when you're dealing with people who believe in something that strongly — you take them seriously. You listen to their words and you believe that they will follow up with what they say.
Didn't we learn that lesson from Usama bin Laden? I heard his warning in 1998. I said on the air at the time, listen to him. We didn't listen. We didn't listen to the revolutionaries in Germany, the revolutionaries in Russia or Venezuela or Cuba — no, no, no. They all have one thing in common. They have all called for revolution.
They want to overthrow our entire system of government, and their words say it. Why won't you believe it?

The passage at the video is highlighted in bold italics at the fifth paragraph from the end of the blockquote.

Glenn Beck isn't inciting violence. He's warning, quite powerfully, of the growing and potentially violent unrest that's brewing at among the announced revolutionaries of the progressive base.

The Left's Opportunistic Antiwar Movement

A good clip, from Reason.tv:

It's obviously true that the antiwar movement of the early 2000s was an anti-Bush, anti-GOP campaign. But what's not mentioned is that the ANSWER folks are an all-purpose perpetual protest organization. They latch on to any developments on the far left and attempt to seize the initiative. That happened at the outset of the protests against Prop. 8 and also during the anti-S.B. 1070 protests in Arizona. And while Democrats have clearly dropped any pretense of being antiwar during the Obama interregnum, these same partisans have little compunction against allying with Stalinists of the ANSWER sort. It's all about timing. ANSWER keeps itself afloat with non-stop outrage, but they're just one segment of the broader progressive left that is anti-American and neo-communist. Code Pink would be a good example. Friendly with President Obama, they advocate extreme positions on the revolutionary left. Recall what John Tierney wrote in 2005:

The irony of the modern “peace” movement is that it has very little to do with peace — either as a moral concept or as a political ideal. Peace is a tactical ideal for movement organizers: it serves as political leverage against U.S. policymakers, and it is an ideological response to the perceived failures of American society. The leaders of anti-war groups are modern-day Leninists ...

And speaking of ANSWER, they're gearing up for their 8th anniversary protest march in Hollywood: "STOP THE WARS: Resist the War Machine! — 8th Anniversary of the Invasion of Iraq."

Saturday, March 19, 2011, the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, will be an international day of action against the war machine.

Protest and resistance actions will take place in cities and towns across the United States. Scores of organizations are coming together. Demonstrations are scheduled for San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and more.

I covered last year's protest, which saw about two thousand demonstrators on hand. I expect to be there again this year, so expect more top-quality coverage.

Blog Archive